Mike O'Brien: We can see that the Conservative party's attitude towards the coal industry during the 1980s and early '90s, when the Conservative Government closed the pits, remains in place. The vehemence with which the hon. Gentleman put his points demonstrates how miners in this country have faced the Conservative party's opposition to their even being employed.
	We will be making a statement within the hour—or very shortly; it depends on the first statement, sp perhaps in two hours—in which we will set out in detail how we will be taking CCS forward. The hon. Gentleman's claim that the Leader of the Opposition has been in some way an advocate for the coal industry is laughable. Ensuring that we have a low-carbon economy, with coal as a part of that, and that we generate electricity from coal using CCS, is a key component of our policy.

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is right. It was significant that the announcement about the strategic siting assessment and the 11 sites was broadly welcomed. That is a sign of the way in which the debate on nuclear has changed. Many people who once had doubts about nuclear have changed their view in light of the threat of climate change. The strategic siting assessment is important for taking forward our plans for new nuclear. It will be followed in the autumn by the national policy statement, which will have the strategic sites attached to it. This is genuinely a consultation. There will be a month for the public to register their views, which precedes the formal consultation—a proper 12-week consultation. So we want to listen to people's views, but broadly the announcement seems to have been welcomed, including by those who live near the sites, which is a positive development for climate change and energy security.

Edward Miliband: I can update my hon. Friend. We should be honest about this: this is one of the two most difficult issues around nuclear. The other is to reassure people on safety. I can tell him that three councils have come forward with proposals for the site of the repository. Preparing the repository will be a long-term process, but those plans are on track and we are talking to those councils about the kind of financial help that will be required. This is important for existing and new nuclear waste. Another important point is that the cost of decommissioning will be borne by the companies; that is a very important part of the Energy Act 2008.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone); there is huge opposition to onshore wind farms. What is the subsidy for every wind turbine erected in this country? Is it not true that there is a shortage of such turbines and that we have to import them, which is certainly not helpful to the country's manufacturing base?

Mike O'Brien: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
	Older cars tend to emit more products into the atmosphere, as a result of which they are greater polluters. The aim is to get some of the much more fuel-efficient cars on the road. The newer cars not only consume far less fuel, by and large, but emit less into the atmosphere. If we can get the newer cars, rather than the older ones, on the road, we will reduce the amount of problems that we have with atmospheric damage.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I try our level best to make sure that there is adequate time for all the subjects that all Members want to debate. Just because one Member wants to debate one issue, it does not necessarily mean that he does not want to prevent other people from debating other issues. In particular, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that on the day to which he refers, Members from the Government Whips' office and I, and Members from his own team, were in lengthy discussions about how we could make sure that we had proper debate of every single item. Furthermore, on that Bill, there were two days for Report. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are keen to try to make sure that happens on every occasion, but we will not be able to achieve perfection.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady ends with the most important point, which is how we ensure that more women want to come to Parliament and have the opportunity to represent a constituency in the House. We could celebrate many more events. For instance, next week is the 80th anniversary of the first woman Cabinet member taking her post; Margaret Bonfield was, appropriately enough, the Minister for Labour; of course, she was a Labour Minister. We are also delighted that it is our side of the House that has produced the first elected black woman MP.  [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Ladies want a commemoration of the first woman Prime Minister, I suspect that it will not be happening in the Rhondda.

Nicholas Winterton: What recent representations she has received on establishing a Commons Business Committee; and if she will make a statement.

Chris Bryant: We have intermittent representations on this issue, including, very regularly, representations from the hon. Gentleman. The last time the House considered a legislative business Committee, however, it rejected the idea.

Chris Bryant: I do know of the group to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Indeed, the Members on it are so senior that I try not to meddle with them too often. However, all that glisters is not gold. If we introduced a business Committee, I think that the hon. Gentleman would find that we would lost a lot of the flexibility that we have at present, which is enjoyed by Members on all sides of the House—

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and the issues of parliamentary privilege that arose from it. The House has already made a resolution to refer the matter to a Committee of the Speaker, and I do not think that it would be a good idea to set up a twin-track approach. All the issues about entry on to the premises of Parliament, the searching of parliamentary offices and constituency correspondence and what is, or should be, available to the court can be considered by the Speaker's Committee, which the House agreed should start its work after the criminal proceedings had come to a conclusion. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should set up a twin-track approach and a separate inquiry into the same issues via the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman says that, but he would need to explain why the Speaker's Committee could not consider the issues that he is concerned about and believes need to be looked into. I am obviously keen for the House to be able to have all the issues that it wants resolved looked into, and I have no vested interest in the House not looking into them and coming to a satisfactory conclusion. I just do not want there to be a twin-track proposal or for us to undermine a resolution that the House has already made at your request, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a Speaker's Committee to look into the matter.
	The second point that the hon. Gentleman raised was about the policing of Parliament square. It is obviously very important that people have the right to demonstrate and are able to make their views known publicly and peacefully, but we have to ensure that the business of this House and the very important site of Parliament square are properly protected, and we do not want the undue tying up of police resources. The matter is under consideration by many authorities and is the operational responsibility of the police. I know that there is ongoing concern and discussions about it, but I do not have anything specific to tell him or the House today.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about road signs and a forest of bossy signs. Speed limits are a very important issue, because they are about cutting deaths on the road through traffic accidents, and particularly about cutting pedestrian deaths. This is not being done for the sake of it, and, by the way, it is a consultation; it is not being pushed through. The evidence is that lower speed limits save lives, and particularly the lives of children who would otherwise be killed in road accidents if they were hit as pedestrians. I ask him to reflect on that, and anybody will have the opportunity to involve themselves in the consultations. If it comes to the question of an ugly road sign or a child being killed, I would go for the ugly road sign.
	We all want to be certain that the national curriculum tests, which are important, are properly marked and the information made available to schools promptly. That did not happen, and there was great concern about that. The Sutherland inquiry was established jointly with Ofqual, and it looked into the situation and made proposals for change. Ken Boston resigned, and he has now given evidence to the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. Incidentally, the Minister for Schools and Learners, who gave inaccurate information, corrected it is as long ago as February, and Lord Sutherland said that it was not material to his findings anyway, so I urge the hon. Gentleman not to make so much of that. We await the report of the Select Committee, and there will be Children, Schools and Families questions next Monday, so hon. Members who want to ask questions about the matter can do so to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team.
	As far as prior publicity about car scrappage is concerned, that first came into the public domain as a demand from the automotive industry. Hon. Members on both sides of the House whose constituents have interests in the automotive industry proposed that scheme to Business Ministers and the Treasury. There was debate and consultation, and the matter could not be kept as a national security issue in those circumstances. There was some discussion in advance—indeed, some of it was in the papers. Rather than focusing on that bit of the process, however, the hon. Gentleman should welcome the car scrappage scheme.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about parliamentary allowances. Many Members have constituencies that are far away from Westminster, which inevitably involves extra cost. We do not want only those who can afford to pay the cost of living away from home to represent far-flung constituencies. I hope that there is general agreement on that point. It is important for us to say that, because sometimes the public do not recognise that that would be the result of not assisting with the extra costs incurred in representing far-flung constituencies. First, none of us wants that to happen. Secondly, we all want the public to have confidence in the way in which the House goes about its work and the way in which public money is spent. Thirdly, it is evident that the public do not have that confidence, and, fourthly, we need to do something about that. Fifthly, I hope that we still agree that it is important to involve an independent element.
	I hope that the Prime Minister's asking the Committee on Standards in Public Life to look at the matter will assist the House. I thank Sir Christopher Kelly for agreeing to take on that work, which he has started today. He needs to engage in consideration, deliberation and consultation, and he needs to take some time before he reaches his conclusion, even though he is going to do it expeditiously. In the meantime, because of the high level of public concern, it is important to introduce an interim change. A number of hon. Members think that we should leave the matter until after Sir Christopher Kelly has made his decision, but I do not think that that is right, because we need to introduce interim measures pending the outcome of Sir Christopher Kelly's report.
	My sixth point concerns the proposed arrangements in my written ministerial statement—if I am going on too long, please put me out of my misery, Mr. Speaker. We all agree that there is no perfect remedy and that all the solutions have different upsides and downsides. The flat-rate daily payment acknowledges the additional costs in far-flung constituencies and is tied to business being conducted in Westminster—if one were in one's constituency all the time, there would be no additional expenses. That proposal includes a reasonable rate. I admit that we will not reach a perfect solution, but it would be good if we were to try to find as much agreement as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman did not mention that it is Shakespeare's birthday.  [ Interruption. ] He has now. I shall call on the Shakespearean wisdom of the Deputy Leader of the House from his days in the National Youth theatre. He has mentioned a character whom I have never heard of, Autolycus, who might have been describing the hon. Gentleman when he referred to
	"a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles."

Harriet Harman: The proposal for a flat-rate daily payment does not come from the back of one of the Prime Minister's envelopes. It is one of the alternatives that has been considered by this House over a period of time, including by the Committee on Members' Allowances in its former incarnation. The flat-rate daily payment system proposal is not new and should take no one by surprise, but it would be transparent about the number of days, and precisely which ones, for which each hon. Member claims.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about what the House will be asked to support. The motion for debate will be tabled in my name, and I hope that it will set out the situation with sufficient detail and clarity that the House will vote for it. This is obviously a House matter, and we will table the motion in enough time for hon. Members to consider the propositions that it contains. They will also be able to table amendments if they wish.
	The written ministerial statement did deal with the issue of the status of staff. I can confirm that the Deputy Leader of the House will meet staff members' union representatives, because we are aware of the very important work that staff do in helping us to serve our constituents and perform our duties in the House. They should not feel insecure or uncertain about how the proposals will affect them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Constitutional Renewal Bill, and he will be aware that it has been discussed by a Committee of both Houses. It proposes putting the civil service on a statutory footing, and will be introduced into the House when time allows.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about investment in broadband, and I can tell him that Lord Carter is in the process of producing his second report on the matter. The post-recovery economy must be green and family-friendly, with a big emphasis on high skills and digital communications, and that is why investment in broadband is central to our proposals. Finally, I remind the hon. Gentleman that will be able to ask further questions on the matter at Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills questions next Thursday.

Harriet Harman: I object to what the hon. Gentleman says. I am happy for all these issues to be looked into. If there is strength of feeling about them, senior Members need to get together to look into all these issues, to reassure the House that they have all been examined and to produce with their analysis of what went on and their proposals for changes, if any are needed. I am perfectly behind the idea that that should happen.
	The House decided, at the request of the Speaker, that a Speaker's Committee would be the way forward, and the resolution says that that Committee will be able to make recommendations for the future. I could say, "I don't care how many Committees look at it. As many Committees as want to look at it should be able to do so." As there is so much complaint about the issue, I will look at the matter again.
	This is not about being obstructive. The idea that the House first responds to a request from the Speaker to set up a Speaker's Committee and, shortly afterwards, before the Speaker's Committee has even started its work, asks the Standards and Privileges Committee to look at it— [ Interruption. ] They could be technically defined as different issues, but there is no reason why the Speaker's Committee should not look at all the questions about privilege that Members are asking for the Committee on Standards and Privileges to look at. However, as people are complaining so much, I will have another look at it, and I might do something ill judged and unwise and set up a twin-track process. Then, when there is duplication and overlap, I will say, "I told you so."

Edward Miliband: I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that when he reflects on his performance today he will reconsider his position and think hard about what policy he wants to pursue. I have to say that he gave a pretty disappointing response that did not show much understanding of the difficulties that we face.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the funding mechanism. He was right to point out that part of the challenge is finding the funding, but the problem with his proposal of using funds from the auctioning of the European carbon allowances is that that has already been accounted for in the Chancellor's Budget plans. The money is not available. The hon. Gentleman's proposal constitutes an uncosted commitment to providing billions of pounds without the faintest clue about where the money will come from. He does not have the money, because it is included in the general accounts published in the Budget. It is difficult to find the necessary finance, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for deciding that we will fund these measures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the means of financing them; he has no such means at his disposal.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how much unabated coal there would be. Let me say to him candidly that while he can pursue his demand for 100 per cent. CCS from day one—I dealt with that in my statement—I believe that it is a foolish approach. It is unaffordable, and it does not make sense in the context of a demonstration technology. It is true that 20 or 25 per cent. of the plant would be abated through CCS, and obviously we will consult on that, but I have thought hard about the matter, and I believe that we have struck the right balance between what is affordable and what is a proper way of demonstrating the technology.
	We will of course consult on the level at which the emissions performance standard could be set, but I must caution the hon. Gentleman against plucking figures out of the air. I have given careful consideration to the proposal for 500 kg per MWh, and I do not think that it would necessarily be appropriate for the conditions that I have described. However, I shall be happy to engage in consultation.
	We shall have more to say about clusters in the consultation document, but I believe that it will be possible to have a number of them around the country, and we will view the bids impartially. Many regions are already submitting proper bids.
	I genuinely hope that we can build consensus in the House. I believe that the combination of the Chancellor's announcements yesterday, the funded demonstration of CCS and my statement today represents a real step forward in security of supply and the environment. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will be able to give our proposals a warmer welcome.

Martin Horwood: I am also grateful for receiving notice of the statement.
	This is a step in the right direction: carbon capture is a vital technology in the transition to a lower carbon electricity-generating economy. It also has huge advantages over, for instance, nuclear, not only because it contributes to base load supply, but because it can provide variable supply, thereby tackling some of the problems of intermittency and peaks and troughs of demand.
	I recognise that the Secretary of State might have had to overcome opposition from within his own Government. Last year, some of us battled against the former Minister, who has just spoken, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), during the passage of the Energy Act 2008, when he fought tooth and nail against expanded competition, and I think it would be appropriate to say that we have the scars on our backs. Sadly, as a result, we have lost crucial ground to the United States, Canada, Brazil, China and others in benefiting commercially from this technology.
	My first question is on funding, which the Committee on Climate Change and  The Guardian seem to agree will come from a charge on the power system—in other words, on customers' bills. Today's statement was, understandably, a little cagier, because is there not a risk that this will contribute to fuel poverty without cuts in income tax for the least well-off, without mandated social tariffs—as suggested in the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—and without massive investment in energy efficiency for millions of homes, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats?
	My second question is about emissions performance standards. I echo many of the comments from Conservative Members and hope that the Government will now support the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy).
	My third question is about the commitment to 100 per cent. retrofitting. That looks fine until we see the escape clause—whether the technology is ready. The critical question is: who bears the risk of it not being ready, the energy companies or the planet? If CCS is not ready, would a Labour Government close Kingsnorth? Unabated coal-fired power stations are the worst of all options—worse even than seeking a derogation from the European Union to extend the life of existing gas-fired power stations for a few more years until CCS is ready. This statement and policy proposal is well intentioned, but it contains a dirty great loophole that is big enough for some of the dirtiest possible power stations to fit into.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman started off well, but slipped into the same mode as the Conservative spokesman. We certainly look forward to being in power in 2020 to be able to answer some of his questions.
	We all face a problem in respect of fuel poverty, and it is best to be candid about it: there are upward pressures on prices from both the high and low-carbon futures. If we carry on with the high-carbon future—I know the hon. Gentleman does not want us to do that—demand from China and India will force prices up, so that is no solution. We are looking at social tariffs—compulsory social tariffs is one of the issues—and the answer is to act on fuel poverty at the same time as driving towards a low-carbon future. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to take additional measures on fuel poverty.
	I have said that we shall consult on the emissions performance standard. I told the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) that we need to be cautious about plucking figures out of the air about the EPS. I have set out the way in which we should demonstrate the technology, and I think we need an EPS that is appropriate for the technology. We should debate the precise figure, but I am not going to state a number today because I do not think that is a sensible way to make policy.
	The technology for retrofitting needs to be proven. For us to demand that CCS must be fitted on a whole plant, it needs to work. I believe that it will work— obviously, we all hope that it will work—but I also said in my statement that, importantly, we must discuss the condition that it does not work and whether, in that case, there should be restrictions on the operation of the plant. However, we are performing a very fine balancing act between getting coal plants built—because, after all, energy companies and others could say they are just going to build gas—and driving towards low carbon. That is why I have set out a framework today, and I say, in the spirit of genuinely wanting co-operation, let us consult on the detail and get that right. The framework needs to last for some time, and I will want to engage in genuine dialogue with the hon. Gentleman about it.

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has huge expertise, and I pay tribute to him for the enormous amount of work that he done for our coal mining communities.
	My hon. Friend made a very important point about the Yorkshire Forward project, but I will generalise. We need public investment, and that is what we will see as a result of the Chancellor's announcements, but we also need private investment. That combination, including investment in some of the industries that he was talking about and the networks that we need, can make a real difference in the future. I am very happy to discuss further with my hon. Friend his other points about new investment, retrofitting, flue gas desulphurisation and so forth.

Ways and Means
	 — 
	Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

George Osborne: As my hon. Friend says, the Chancellor might well want to put in a call to the IMF for all sorts of reasons.
	It is good to open this debate with the Energy Secretary here. He is always an engaging fellow and we always have a good relationship. After all, he was one of the key economic advisers of the last 10 years—one of the members of the council of economic advisers and one of the adjuncts in that famous Treasury bunker. To be fair, he has always stressed that he just stuck to giving economic advice rather than trying to run the political operations. Given what has happened to the British economy, perhaps in the interests of his long-term ambitions, he should take credit for the political operations and leave Mr. McBride to take the blame for the economic advice.
	We welcome the Secretary of State to this debate, and it is a special one. Government Budgets normally take a few days to unravel—sometimes just one day—but this one set a new record. It unravelled half an hour after the Chancellor sat down. He sat down at around 1.30 pm, and at 2 pm the IMF produced its growth forecasts for the world economy and the British economy, which completely contradicted the growth that the Chancellor had given to the House just a few minutes earlier.
	Instead of the economy going from a staggering 3.5 per cent. contraction to a fantastically optimistic 3.5 per cent. growth in just two years, the IMF says the recovery will be much slower and, indeed, that Britain's economy will still be contracting next year. I hear sneers and dismissal from Government Members about the IMF's figures, but I thought that the IMF was going to be the new early-warning system for the Prime Minister. In a stroke, the IMF destroyed the credibility of the premise on which the Budget and its borrowing figures had been built. The claim is that within just two years, the British economy is supposed to bounce from the deepest recession that it has known since the second world war to levels of economic growth and household consumption seen only at the height of the boom; we now know that, frankly, in the view of almost every independent forecaster, that is a complete fantasy. No wonder that one paper this morning described the whole thing as "Alistair in Wonderland". I guess that that leaves the Prime Minister as our mad hatter—and given the expression on the face of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, he is the white rabbit.
	As I say, the IMF was not the only one to question the central Budget assumptions. Almost every single business organisation and independent forecaster followed suit, including the Institute of Directors, the Engineering Employers Federation and a host of others. This is what the chief economist at Standard Chartered—one of the few banks that has not gone bust under this Government—said yesterday afternoon:
	"The chancellor...believes recovery will be rapid...we will see growth of 1.25 per cent. in 2010 and 3.5 per cent. in 2011. This is fantasy...as this...rebound is expected to occur"
	while the "legacy" of the borrowing binge "lingers on".
	Extraordinarily, the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday announced the worst public finances ever announced in the House of Commons, told us that in the next two years we would borrow more than has been announced at that Dispatch Box by all previous Chancellors combined, and said that he would double the national debt, yet he was guilty of being too optimistic. That is the scale of the mess that the Government have created. The tragedy of yesterday was that instead of being honest about that mess—instead of taking responsibility for the mistakes that have been made and giving us a credible plan to pull Britain through—we got that complete fantasy.
	This is what the director general of the CBI said yesterday afternoon:
	"The key question for this Budget was whether it set out a credible and rigorous path for restoring the public finances to health. The CBI's preliminary judgement must be that it does not".
	That sums up the scale of the failure yesterday. The central task of a Budget in a recession such as this is to inspire confidence in the future—confidence that the Government are realistic about the problems that the country faces, confidence that they have a credible and rigorous plan to deal with those problems, and confidence that they have the leadership and vision to take this country forward. Who would say that in Britain today, people and families are feeling more confident about this country's future as a result of the Budget? Almost no one. That is why yesterday was not a route map to recovery but the death rattle of a tired and discredited Government who are limping on until the law of the land actually forces them to hold a general election.
	Let us look at the components of what a credible and rigorous path for restoring the public finances might look like, and then we can see why the Budget failed.  [Interruption.] Indeed, and it might come as a surprise that there is such a thing as a credible and rigorous path to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, because we certainly did not hear of one yesterday. First, it would involve understanding why the public finances are in such a disastrous state. The Prime Minister is still stuck in the rut of claiming that this is the recession that came from America and hit an otherwise sound British economy. I see the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) nodding his head. He must be about the only person in the world who believes that now.  [Interruption.] Okay, the three of them do—the hon. Members for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), and for Midlothian. Perhaps if we have a swipe-card system, we will get some more in, too.
	Whether we are talking about Lord Turner, from whom the Government commissioned a report, or the Treasury Secretary of the United States, there is now consensus that the British economy, like the American economy, went through a credit boom that fuelled an unsustainable rise in house prices, household borrowing and bank leverage. Indeed, it was greater in the UK than in the US. It was an illusion of economic stability built on a mountain of debt. Given that, the claim to have abolished boom and bust was surely one of the greatest political deceits ever told to the British people, and the decision to borrow at unsustainable levels during the boom, instead of fixing the roof when the sun was shining, left Britain totally unprepared for the economic slow-down. That is why Britain now has the worst public finances of any major economy in the developed world. Even in the past 24 hours, after the Government forecast a Budget deficit of over 12 per cent. of national income, Ministers still will not admit it.
	I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the Chamber. Yesterday, I watched her saying in the media that the US deficit was going to be higher than ours. I do not know whether she read the IMF report published yesterday afternoon. It says that with the exception of Ireland, the UK has the highest budget deficit of any of the countries that it looked at—higher even than that of Iceland, let alone the United States of America. That is the highest deficit in our peacetime history.
	Let us remember what the Prime Minister said just last year. Perhaps these words were crafted by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change:
	"Look in the early 1990s, let's look at how economies go wrong,"—
	said the Prime Minister—
	"in the early 1990s Government borrowing went up to 8 per cent of GDP, that's what happened under the Conservatives. It went completely out of control."
	If he describes 8 per cent. as "completely out of control", what does he call a 12 per cent. budget deficit?
	In the Red Book, there is an admission, which we might well be putting on posters in the run-up to the next election, that the current downturn is forecast to be much deeper than that of the early 1990s.

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is there on page 200 of the Red Book. He can read it out if he likes, or I will. [Hon. Members: "Go on!"] Oh, all right. It says that
	"the current downturn is forecast to be much deeper than that of the early 1990s".
	There we go—from the lips of Labour itself, after all those years of lectures about the 1990s, Black Wednesday and all that, we have that admission, and we will treasure it.
	Of course, when the Government's defence on the deficit is looking a little threadbare, they turn to the argument about the stock of debt—overall levels of Government debt—but that argument is now falling apart, too, because the stock of debt is soaring as well. According to the OECD, Britain will have higher debt than 20 other developed nations—higher than France and Germany. The significance of that is that the Prime Minister said, just a few months ago:
	"The national debt, even after the difficulties that we go through, will be lower as a percentage of national income than in France, Germany"—[ Official Report, 26 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 716.]
	That commitment—that promise—given by the Prime Minister just a few months ago is now completely worthless. We will see whether the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change repeats it today. How on earth can the Prime Minister be trusted to get the future right when he does not understand the mistakes of the past or the problems of the present?
	The second component of a credible and rigorous path to restoring some sanity to the public finances is a clear statement that the principal weapon in dealing with Britain's overspending is spending restraint. Let me be fair: Labour has come off its spending plans. Fantastic! At last! We have been telling it to do that for months. We would like to hear an apology from every single Labour Minister who has stood at that Dispatch Box month after month and said that coming off Labour spending plans meant savage public service cuts. Only a few months ago, the Prime Minister said of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
	"he wants to cut public spending. He is totally on the wrong side of the argument."—[ Official Report, 14 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 210.]
	But listen to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the "Today" programme this morning:
	"I have cut overall public spending"
	in the Budget. In fact, the Budget Red Book shows that Labour will cut its departmental spending plans by £9 billion, and its capital spending plans by £11 billion, over the next four years. That is what the Labour MPs were cheering about at the end of that Budget statement—not that the cheering went on for very long.
	That is the political tragedy of the Budget. We have moved from the age of prosperity to an age of austerity, but the leadership of the Labour party has been completely left behind by events. There should be a sensible debate in this Parliament, now, about how we can deliver decent public services in a period of tight spending control. We should be discussing how to get better value for money now that the cupboard is bare. We should be deciding—and perhaps have a debate between the parties—on the best way of tackling the long-term drivers of public expenditure, such as unproductive services, welfare dependency and family breakdown. We should be working out what replaces the completely defunct fiscal rules and the two-year spending reviews that used to provide at least some appearance of a fiscal framework. But what do we have from the Labour party? Absolutely nothing. The fiscal framework now consists of a temporary operating rule that will be more permanent than the temporary fiscal rules that were supposed to be permanent.
	To be fair, some people in the Labour party, and some people who used to be in the Labour Cabinet, want to have debate about the politics of austerity and how to deliver government to the people in a time of spending constraint. The right hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and even the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) have all called for such a debate, but their problem is that their party is led by someone who still wants to reduce everything to a pathetic dividing line of Labour investment versus Tory cuts. How on earth does the Prime Minister expect to achieve that? How on earth does he expect to advance that argument when, on the basis on which Labour fought the last election, the cuts announced in yesterday's Budget amount to £84 billion? Does he really think people will not notice that, far from seeing so-called Labour investment, we have just seen investment in the health service—capital investment—cut by £2.3 billion next year and investment in schools and universities cut by £900 million?
	The Government have another problem. Although the Budget accepts the principle that Labour spending plans were completely unaffordable, and although the Government have told us that billions of pounds are being wasted in Whitehall as we speak, they cannot explain why they are still planning to increase spending in 2010 by 2.9 per cent. Indeed, yesterday the Government actually increased their spending plans for 2010—next year—by £20 billion, and only half of that was extra spending on debt interest and unemployment. When will they admit in their arguments what the figures in their Budget tell them? Their spending plans are simply unaffordable.
	The Chancellor has admitted that there is scope for efficiency savings. On the radio this morning, he said:
	"Any organisation can always be more efficient...We"—
	the Government—
	"need to be more efficient."
	Anyone listening to that might have been under the impression that the Government were actually taking some of those tough decisions to make things more efficient, but the Chancellor will start to constrain public expenditure only in 2011. I wonder why he picked that date— [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State says that we want to cut it now. Just to be clear, we are proposing, in a recession, to restrain the growth of public expenditure by £5 billion and use the money to reduce taxes on pensioners and savers and to provide extra courses for people who are leaving university this summer. Even with the right hon. Gentleman's economic understanding, he must realise that that is not a fiscal tightening or a fiscal loosening. It is fiscally neutral and it is the right way to spend money that the Government themselves admit is being wasted at present.
	Is it not the most cynical trick of all for the Government to pretend that they are only hitting the rich by raising their taxes before the election, while delaying the real tax rises and tough spending decisions until after the election? How courageous. What leadership: a move worthy of a Prime Minister who has never had the courage to submit himself to a democratic vote. Thankfully, the public have seen straight through it. Instead, we see the Labour party lurching left, off the centre ground that Tony Blair put it on to all those years ago. Gone is the language of aspiration and opportunity; in comes the talk of "soak the rich" and "pips squeaking". Never mind that a 50 per cent. tax rate before the election clearly breaks one of the central promises in Labour's election manifesto. It will be interesting to hear what the Secretary of State says about the election manifesto commitment not to raise the top rate of tax. The manifesto said:
	"We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next Parliament."
	As I understand it, if there is a general election next May or June, that will have happened and the manifesto promise will have been broken. That is from a Prime Minister who, unbelievably now, came into office pledging to restore trust in politics.
	Of course, it is not the rich who will bear the burden of Labour's historic incompetence. When we look closely at the Red Book, it is clear that the headline-grabbing measures announced by the Chancellor will actually raise less money than the national insurance rise on the jobs and incomes of people earning more than £20,000 a year. Although we do not think that higher marginal tax rates are a good idea, and although we agree with all the arguments that used to be advanced from the Dispatch Box by the former Chancellor and the former Member for Sedgefield that higher top rates of tax can damage enterprise, our priority will be to reverse the tax rises on the many, not the few.

George Osborne: I would advise them to continue returning my hon. Friend to Parliament. I remind the House that he was one of the first to draw attention to the impact of unemployment in individual constituencies as a result of Labour's recession.
	The Chancellor made great play yesterday of his guarantee to everyone aged between 18 and 24 who claims jobseeker's allowance for more than a year that they will be given a work placement or work-related training. That was the big the promise on unemployment. Well, we have done some research over the past 24 hours. What the Chancellor did not tell us is that, as of today, only 5,755 people are covered by that guarantee. I hope that it is good help to that 5,755, but there are 1.2 million young people aged between 18 and 24 who do not qualify. They are languishing; they are not in school, not in a job and not in training—a record number of NEETs under the Government.
	We heard much of the green recovery that would be unleashed by the Budget—something that I know is very much on the mind of the Secretary of State; no doubt he thought all about it in advance and did the spinning. What happened? What about the electric car announcement? The battery ran out before it even made it to the Budget speech. Friends of the Earth said about yesterday:
	"The Government has squandered a historic opportunity to kick-start a Green industrial revolution."
	WWF says that
	"what was announced is not the bold leadership we desperately need to secure a truly low-carbon future."
	The leadership on that future, like the leadership on so many other big challenges facing Britain today, has to wait for a new Conservative Government. That lack of leadership is the legacy of a Prime Minister who has always been more interested in short-term political dividing lines than in any long-term vision for the country.
	For years, the Prime Minister said that the choice was between Labour investment and Tory cuts; now, he has cut investment in schools and hospitals and given us £84 billion of Labour cuts, but he still lacks the courage to admit it or debate it. For years, he said that the choice was between the many versus the few; now, he is raising taxes on the many and the few, including a tax on jobs in a recovery. For years, he said that the choice was between Tory boom and bust and Labour prudence and stability, and now he has given us the prudence of the worst budget deficit in our history, the stability of the deepest recession since the second world war and the tragedy of the greatest boom turning to the biggest bust.
	Eighteen months ago, the Prime Minister cancelled the general election—no doubt on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State—and said that he wanted more time to set out his vision. That is what he said. Now we know, after yesterday's Budget, that there is no vision to set out, and the sooner we change our Government, the sooner we will get the change that our country so desperately needs.

Edward Miliband: I am not quite clear from that answer whether or not the hon. Gentleman supports the action. I suspect that he wants to have it both ways.
	On the question how we get out of recession, however, there is a philosophical difference that is worth highlighting. The shadow Chancellor may not want to talk about it, but it is important that the country knows the difference. In a debate in the House last month, he was asked about his view on borrowing and on borrowing rising in a recession. He gave a very illuminating answer, saying that
	"tax receipts fall off and welfare payments increase,"
	and that, as a result—these were not his words—borrowing rises. He continued:
	"Those are the fiscal stabilisers, and that provides a fiscal stimulus. That was a debate that was had in this country and many others over many decades since the 1930s."—[ Official Report, 18 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 932.]
	There you have it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The shadow Chancellor's view, even when interest rates are at 0.5 per cent. in this country, is that the limits of fiscal policy—this is a very important point—are to let the automatic stabilisers work. On that point, however, he is pretty much alone: 19 of the 20 G20 countries have put more money into their economies; the Institute of Directors and the CBI support putting extra money into the economy; the managing director of the IMF supports it, too; and— [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members ask about the Governor of the Bank of England, but he also supported our fiscal measures—and our targeted action in the Budget.
	The shadow Chancellor calls himself the moderniser in the Conservative party. I think he once said that we was not an über-moderniser, but he says that he is a moderniser. Interestingly, there is someone who I think is the shadow Chancellor's secret hero: President Obama is, I am sure, someone for whom the shadow Chancellor has great admiration. What did the President say in November 2008? I agree with what he said, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he does, too. The President said that
	"we have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again...we're gonna have to spend money now to stimulate the economy...short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession".
	I would be happy to give way to the shadow Chancellor, because he did not want to illuminate our differences of view. I am happy for him to come back on this point. I repeat, President Obama said that
	"we're gonna have to spend money now to stimulate the economy".
	He believes in fiscal expansion and targeted action. I wonder whether the shadow Chancellor will tell us whether he agrees. I am happy to give way.

George Osborne: Let me ask the question again, because it is very important. The definition of cuts that the right hon. Gentleman used is: money that comes off previously published spending plans. Will he now concede that that means that, on his definition, there are £84 billion-worth of cuts in the Budget and the pre-Budget report, because they have come off previously published Labour spending plans? Yes or no?

Martin Horwood: I had not spotted that item, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to my attention. There are, of course, many bear traps in the area of biofuels. Unless we implement sustainability criteria, we could contribute to global warming rather than prevent it.
	The Climate Change Committee says that aviation must face an appropriate cost for carbon to provide an incentive for supply-side abatement and demand constraint. The background to the third runway decision was a fiddled version of the shadow price of carbon, which deviated from Sir Nicholas Stern's proposed formula and, specifically, his discount rate. Perhaps the Secretary of State should seek the committee's advice on the appropriate cost of carbon and how exactly one can constrain demand for aviation while building extra runways at our biggest airports.
	On carbon capture and storage, we heard the Chancellor's statement yesterday and have heard and read the Secretary of State's announcements and documents today. The announcements sound great—a bigger, better competition and an apparent commitment to all coal-fired power stations being 100 per cent. retrofitted with carbon capture and storage by 2025, but the vital escape clause is that it is
	"subject to the technology being ready".
	If it is not ready, the unabated power station will not be shut down and will continue to belch out far more greenhouse gases than any available alternative. In the accompanying document, much is made of carbon capture-readiness. A friend once told me that carbon capture-ready is a bit like paving one's front garden and declaring it Ferrari-ready—aspirational, but no real guarantee of success. How right she was.
	Lord Smith, chairman of the Environment Agency, the Government's own environmental advisers, was also right. The agency rejected the idea of building coal-fired power stations that can be fitted with CCS technology later, claiming that it would be
	"insufficient for the climate change challenge that we face".
	There are some other genuinely welcome steps in the Budget, of which the extra incentive to offshore wind energy through increased renewable obligations certificates is one, but there are also some strange steps in completely the wrong direction. Was the push to exploit new oil and gas reserves the Secretary of State's idea, or has big oil been talking to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform? Does the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform carry more clout with No. 10 and the Treasury than the Secretary of State who is here today? I suspect that he might. It all sounds a bit more Bush than Obama.
	A great deal was missing from the rest of the Budget, such as an admission that the Government have got some things plain wrong. For example, it is absolutely irresponsible to waste £1 billion a month on a VAT cut that hardly anyone has noticed. The Budget also lacks any serious measures to help us adapt to climate change. I notice in the detail, because it affects my constituency in particular, that the £800 million flood budget is being supplemented by a £20 million increase, although the increase will be brought forward only from next year, when there will presumably be a compensating cut. The Budget does not include a scheme to compensate those communities located in counties such as Norfolk that face much faster than expected coastal erosion, perhaps in large part due to the action of climate change.
	Landfill tax keeps increasing, placing a burden on local authorities, which might be acceptable if there were corresponding help for some of the programmes that have been cut drastically in recent years, such as the national industrial symbiosis programme, the waste recycling action programme, Envirowise, the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust and the small and much neglected Partnerships for Renewables. The latter was set up to help public sector bodies deliver renewable energy locally at no cost to them. The scheme is exciting and innovative, but it has had precious little support so far.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct. I am happy to clarify the policy. I am not saying that we should not increase landfill tax, but if we place such burdens on local authorities, we must give them the corresponding support to develop recycling; otherwise the result will be exactly what we face in Gloucestershire, where the Conservative-controlled county council is pursuing incineration, which will contribute toxic fly ash to the waste disposal site at Wingmore Farm near my constituency. We do not want to force local authorities in that direction. I do not necessarily disagree with an increase in landfill, but we must have compensating support for local authorities to enable them to meet that in an environmentally responsible way.
	Where is the investment in railways? Last year, the Office for Rail Regulation turned down millions of pounds of railway schemes. One of the schemes would have been built near Doncaster, and the Swindon to Kemble line would have improved railway services to the whole of Gloucestershire and helped reliability for the whole network in the west country. In our "Green Road out of the Recession", we suggested as an alternative to the £12.5 billion VAT cut that the money might have been better spent delivering almost the entire list of projects turned down by the Office of Rail Regulation for lack of funds. That would have provided not only a fantastic short-term stimulus, but support for business and local economies, which would have been a long-term investment in this country's future. It could have been extended to include high-speed rail to Scotland or Wales and the west country. There could have been more investment in innovative ideas such as ultra-light rail, which would work in not only urban areas, but mixed urban, rural and suburban areas such as Gloucestershire. Instead, we have had the very hyped announcements on electric cars—a very new Labour idea. The Liberal Democrats suggested years ago that the EU might be crucial in directing the whole of the new-car market towards electric and zero-carbon vehicles. However, we also said that a short-term investment in the railways would do much more to reduce CO2 than would subsidies to the car industry for vehicles that, although more efficient, would still run on fossil-fuel powered electricity for years to come.
	Where was the investment in housing? The Chancellor announced a few hundreds of millions of pounds for energy efficiency in housing, but if we had not been wasting money on cutting VAT we could have invested billions in providing energy efficiency and insulation for a million homes for some of the least well-off families in the country. We could also have subsidised investment in energy efficiency for a million more.
	While the Liberal Democrats and the Government argue about how the money for stimulus measures should be spent, at least we agree that there had to be stimulus measures. The Conservative party could not pay for any of the green stimulus that we propose, because it would not have had any sort of stimulus package. Perhaps its interest in the environment is waning anyway, as it is unashamedly pro-nuclear and pro-incineration, and many of the interesting proposals from its quality of life policy group never made it into party policy.
	There is, however, a bigger picture. Do we need to look more fundamentally at how we measure the quality of our economy and society? The hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) made a speech yesterday that might not have been widely noticed but which I consider to be very important. In it, he said:
	"What if today's financial crisis were something more fundamental than merely a serious and deep recession? What if 14 September 2008—the date on which Lehman Brothers was allowed to go belly up—represented the point at which the whole architecture of a consumption-led, growth-based economy collapsed? Perhaps this crisis is telling us that a system predicated on limitless growth must inevitably hit boundaries—boundaries that are not only economic, but ecological."—[ Official Report, 22 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 298.]
	It has been a Liberal party and Liberal Democrat theme for many years that the environment contains the economy, and not the other way around. Will recovery without clear environmental performance indicators and the recognition of constraints on well-being lead us straight back to the obsessive boom-and-bust model perfected by the Conservative party and executed with rash panache by the Labour Government over the past decade? We need a new model of sustainable prosperity that allows us to meet people's aspirations for a decent quality of life, decent homes and a clean environment in a truly sustainable way.

Clive Betts: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by offering an apology to the House? I have a long-standing appointment at 3 o'clock, and I intend no discourtesy either to you or to hon. Members who speak after me if I have to leave at that time. However, I shall of course return to the debate in due course.
	I shall not deal too much with the bigger picture of the Budget: instead, I want to focus on some of the particulars. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change amply illustrated the clear divide between the two sides of the House. We on the Labour Benches are looking to target measures to help the economy in general, firms and individuals through what is clearly going to be a very difficult time in the next few years. The Opposition offer no hope at all, only totally inappropriate cuts.
	I have the honour of representing in this House a constituency in the city of Sheffield, where life is becoming difficult for many individuals and companies. However, it is interesting to note that the success of our local economy during the period of Labour Government has meant that, although unemployment is starting to rise in Sheffield, that is not happening as quickly as it is nationally. That is completely different from the city's experience in the 1980s, when our economy was based very largely on steel and engineering. The collapse of those industries had a devastating and dramatic effect, but we now have a much more diversified economy, with a range of different industries. They include education and health provision in the public sector, as well firms in the high-tech, financial and leisure-related sectors. That diversity certainly holds us in better stead to come through what nevertheless will clearly be a difficult period.

Clive Betts: Of course, the rate at which unemployment is rising depends on the base from which it starts. I can comment with particular knowledge about my city of Sheffield, and that is what I will do. As I have pointed out, we certainly benefited from the period of a Labour Government and their actions.
	Despite the fact that we will have problems—people in Sheffield will lose their jobs and we should recognise the individual trauma that that causes them and their families—many companies are nevertheless doing well, and we should not forget about them. Nor should we forget about the Advanced manufacturing park, which is located just in Rotherham but works with the university of Sheffield. Through that partnership we are now working to redress a long-term British problem, which is that we do well in research and invention, but not so very well in innovating and extending that research and invention into products. That is what the Advanced manufacturing park is all about, and its work with Boeing and a number of other high-tech companies will spin off into jobs for the future.
	Then there are companies such as Forgemasters, which had an appalling experience with the floods last year. However, Forgemasters took on 40 new apprentices only a few months ago and has order books for the future. The company is now looking for serious investment and exports most of its products throughout the world. Forgemasters will be a key player in the development of our nuclear industry, because it has the capacity to produce some of the most important parts for nuclear plants.
	The other day I went to a firm on the edge of my constituency, just in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), called Davy Markham, which is also a success story. A management buy-out of a firm in difficulties a few years ago, Davy Markham now has an order book for months ahead and is exporting most of its work. The managing director said to me, "I can take on any skilled machinist who walks through the door, because we are successful and producing products that are needed." Davy Markham makes massive machining products for turbines and other parts. That is a niche market, but the company is a success story.
	However, we should also learn the lessons for those companies from what happened in the past. One of the problems for those firms is the legacy of the lack of training for so many years after the recessions of the 1980s, the effects of which still lingers today. We took away a swathe of skilled operatives and did not train any more. Therefore, firms such as Davy Markham are still suffering today from a shortage of experienced, skilled operatives, even though they run their own training schemes. We must ensure that the recession of the day does not leave for the future the sorts of legacies that we suffered from after the recessions of the 1980s. I therefore welcome the help being given to businesses through capital allowances, the deferment of business rates and the strategic investment fund. All are important to ensure that our successful high-tech firms with export markets are sustained for the future, and helped and encouraged to train the people who will be needed when the recovery comes.
	I also welcome the measures taken on the environment. Those on carbon capture, offshore wind farms and combined heat and power are all important moves to sustain those industries and ensure that we fulfil our international climate change commitments. I also hope that some of the measures that we have taken to support industry will help to sustain and develop firms in the green transport sector, which is something that I am particularly keen on. Indeed, I have two ministerial meetings arranged with two companies in my constituency that have some very interesting proposals.
	One of those companies is called ITM and is developing ways of producing hydrogen much more cheaply than has been possible in the past. The firm has developed a refrigerator-sized unit for domestic properties that can produce hydrogen that people can then put into their cars. That is an interesting development, because it means that we do not need a great network of sites throughout the country; rather, people can use the unit in their own homes. The unit may not yet be commercially viable, but the research, the invention and the innovation are there, and it is absolutely fascinating.
	The Government are looking at help for electric cars, but if we are to help to develop green transport in the future, hydrogen-powered cars will probably be a much more exciting and relevant possibility. When Jeremy Clarkson can welcome an environmentally friendly car as a real possibility on "Top Gear", we are perhaps making real progress. If we can produce an environmentally friendly car that people still enjoy driving, that must make success in tackling climate change a real possibility. I hope that we will consider helping firms such as ITM and seeing how they can be encouraged and helped to produce products that will be important for our economy and our export potential for many years ahead, if we can become a world leader in producing them.
	In its ideas for the production of hydrogen, ITM is looking to link in with offshore wind farms, which will certainly be an important source of energy in the future, although they produce energy simply when the wind blows, which is not always when that energy is needed. ITM is looking at the possibility of turning the energy produced by offshore wind farms into hydrogen, storing it under the North sea and using the pipelines from the North sea as a means of bringing it onshore. It is a concept at this stage; it is an idea, but it is exciting and interesting and, again, something in which we have the potential to become a world leader. I hope that firms that have such ideas will be assisted so that those ideas are implemented in this country as a first.
	I also intend to have transport Ministers meet with another firm in my constituency called Magtec. It is developing an interesting electromagnetic motor that can be attached to a conventional heavy goods vehicle or bus. The firm believes that it has the technology, and it works; there are buses running around in Denver in the United States with the original form of the technology on them. It says that it can achieve a 40 per cent. fuel saving on an HGV or a bus. It is a practical proposal. The technology is there; it works. The firm just needs to convince some of the bus manufacturers that its product is the one that ought to be used and developed.
	Magtec has just taken on four more skilled engineers and technicians to help it with this work. It is a small company, but again it is looking to grow, even in the current difficult circumstances. Such companies are growing in precisely the industries that we ought to be encouraging and assisting. I hope that they can have access to some of the measures in the Budget to help them through what is obviously not an easy time for any company.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) referred to rail. I certainly support rail transport, and I hope that, whatever problems we have with future Government finances, we will maintain our commitment to invest in rail, especially where it can lead people to stop using internal air transport and where we can switch from diesel to electrified rail systems. I have a constituency interest in two particular issues. I know that a working party that includes transport Ministers is looking at the potential electrification of the Midland main line. That certainly would be welcomed in Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and many other places. On the line north of Bedford, we hope for an early announcement and a commitment that the scheme will go ahead.
	In the slightly longer term, we are looking for strategic decisions on the high-speed rail network. I raised that issue with the Transport Secretary in questions a short time ago. I argue strongly that, as well as a line to Birmingham, we can take a line off from Rugby—the old Great Central line—and run it through between Nottingham and Derby up between Sheffield and Rotherham and on to Leeds. There is no reason why we should think simply about one line. A line to Leeds via Nottingham and Derby and Sheffield and another line going up to Manchester seems to provide an entirely sensible system if we then have a proper link through the Woodhead tunnel linking the west of the country with the east. The possibilities for rail are real, and I hope that the Government remain committed to them, because their development would be good for British industry, for the travelling public and for the environment.
	I welcome the extra money for the Warm Front programme, but tenants who live in social housing are still at a disadvantage because the work permitted under that programme is available to owner-occupiers and private tenants on particular benefits, but not to social housing tenants. It is not just a matter of insulation—often houses in the social housing sector are well insulated—but often a problem with old and antiquated boilers. If social housing tenants had assistance through the Warm Front programme, we could do an awful lot to make their homes more energy efficient and save those tenants money.
	It is absolutely right that the Government are targeting help on unemployed young people and the long-term unemployed. Again, I go back to the 1980s in Sheffield. We are still suffering today from the problems caused when the breadwinner of families became unemployed in the 1980s, never got back into work and invalidity benefits were seen as a substitute for jobs. As a result, one generation after another has remained unemployed. We have to recognise that long-term unemployment is a major social problem as well as an economic one, and we must ensure that we focus on those people. It is often easy to forget about them. With more people becoming unemployed, those who have been unemployed the longest and who perhaps have the fewest skills are often forgotten about altogether because they are the hardest to deal with. We must not let that happen now.
	When people lose their jobs, it is also important to ensure that they do not lose their homes as well. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that people who end up on income support get help with their mortgage payments after three months, rather than nine months. That was a good step, as is the home owners mortgage support scheme that was announced this week. That scheme will be important, because it is not usually the whole family that goes on to income support. Instead, one family member might become unemployed or go on to short-time working, but the family as a whole relies on both people working full time to support the mortgage. That is why our support for home owners needs to become more flexible in enabling them to keep their homes. When one member of a family becomes unemployed, the family as a whole does not get income support, and it is going to struggle to pay the mortgage. The home owners mortgage support scheme therefore represents an excellent step forward.
	In questions earlier this week, I raised the issue of private tenants with the Housing Minister. More people are going to get into difficulty when the owner of a property—sometimes on a buy-to-let mortgage, but sometimes not—defaults on their mortgage, and the private tenants, who have paid their rent and done nothing wrong, suddenly find that their home is at risk. I know that the Government have an agreement to extend the period of notice involved, and I have some sympathy with the mortgage lenders in this regard. When they offer a buy-to-let mortgage, it is clear to them that tenants will be in the property. Unfortunately, however, some home owners with an ordinary mortgage subsequently let their property without telling the lender, which can lead to real difficulties. We have to take that issue on board, and I was pleased that the Housing Minister recognised that that problem still exists and that the Government need to introduce further measures.
	I also welcome the help for building more homes, for buying up empty houses, including those on sites where private developers have not been able to sell, and for encouraging local authorities to begin building programmes. We must think about the longer-term issues as well, however. The Government have set a target for 40,000 units of social rented housing to be built each year, but that target is unlikely to be hit, even with this extra help, for the simple reason that section 106 agreements are no longer coming to fruition because the private schemes that would have delivered them are not being built.
	Also, housing associations are in difficulties because most of them rely on a mix of funding for their schemes. They get some money from the social housing grant and some from building houses for sale on the same site as their rental properties, which involves cross-subsidising. As there is now greater uncertainty about whether those houses will be sold, the housing associations cannot get private finance and many of their schemes are simply not happening.
	There is therefore going to be a real problem hitting the 40,000 target, even with these extra measures. If there is to be any chance of moving forward on building social housing for rent at the moment, the Government must make it absolutely clear that they will provide the money to local authorities that are prepared to provide their land for free in order to make these schemes happen. There is a challenge for local authorities up and down the country to come into partnership with the Government and to get social housing grant, but they then need to make that grant go further by putting their land in for free in order to get homes built in their communities.
	Local authorities often moan about the shortage of housing, and there is a real shortage up and down the country. That problem becomes more stark when people cannot afford to buy or cannot get a mortgage. More people are therefore going on to local authority waiting lists, and there is a real shortage of rented housing. This is certainly true of my own constituency; I get people contacting me about this problem almost every day. However, local authorities must be prepared to step up to the mark and recognise that this is a priority for them as well as for the Government.
	I have often said to the Government that we must consider the longer-term issues that will apply when we come out of the recession. The fundamental demand for housing, either for purchase or for rent, has not gone away. One of my real worries is that we shall now go through a period of no training for skilled workers for the building industry. It was only a year ago that we were welcoming people from the Czech Republic, Poland and many other places to help us to sustain our house building and to carry out home improvements through the decent homes programme, because we had a shortage of skilled workers. We could now have three or four years in which fewer homes are built, with people being laid off and drifting out of the industry, and no one being trained.
	Once demand returns, however, there could be a real problem if we go back to the old housing inflation. Demand will not have gone away, but we will have had a period without adequate supply, in which people have not been trained and others have been lost to the industry. When demand comes back, the resulting shortage of capacity could lead to another sharp upward spike in house prices. How we cope with that and retain people in the industry—we need to retain people in skilled manufacturing jobs as well—is a real challenge.
	I am a little disappointed that the Budget paid no attention to the need to offer some help for short-time working in various industries, which has happened in many continental European countries, because that is one way in which we might have been able to keep more skilled people in manufacturing and construction. If the Government had assisted with that, we might have been able to retain more skilled workers. That challenge still has to be met.
	No one likes paying more at petrol or diesel pumps for their fuel—an inevitability in current circumstances. One issue people have raised with me—I do not have an the answer for the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—is that they should be buying diesel cars because they are more fuel-efficient, yet diesel is more expensive, quite a bit more expensive, than petrol in this country. In many countries on the continent, diesel is much cheaper than petrol. Why cannot we offer diesel at the pumps for at least the same price as petrol? Why do we have this price differential, which encourages people to buy less fuel-efficient cars? The Government should have a word with the industry about that with a view to mitigating some of the extra costs.
	On the beer tax, I know that the Government have to raise money, but there is a difficulty with their proposal. Clearly, we have a problem with binge drinking, which is mainly about crates of cheap lager from the supermarkets getting into the hands of young people, and I am sure that we have all heard complaints from our constituents from time to time about that sort of activity. However, we face a fundamental problem in terms of the demise of the British pub as a community institution, so carrying on regardless putting up the beer duty will have an impact. The problem is not just one for the Government. The other day, I met a group of tenants in my constituency who work for Enterprise Inns; they did not point their fingers at the Government, but said that, in their calculations, Enterprise Inns could make a pound a pint on the beer it sold, so perhaps putting 2p on beer duty was not the real issue. Nevertheless, the Government need to be sensitive about this point. Yes, of course we are against binge drinking; yes, of course we want sensible measures to deal with it; but if that means putting at risk community institutions such as pubs, we need to be very careful indeed. I urge the Government to think again.

Angela Browning: Let me begin by saying something about personal debt. Many people throughout the country are extremely worried about their personal finances during what will be—notwithstanding the Chancellor's announcement yesterday—a long and deep recession. They are worried about their jobs and their housing problems and, elderly people, in particular are worried about what will happen to the income on which they rely from investments, especially building society and bank savings accounts.
	We know that even before the recession started, the savings ratio had halved under the stewardship of this Labour Government. That should have sounded a loud warning bell to Ministers, but they were very tardy in attempting to do anything about it. When people lose the incentive to save—to put money aside for a rainy day, or perhaps to fix the roof while the sun is shining—it is a very serious matter, not just for them personally but because it changes the culture in the country. It affects people's feeling that they have a personal responsibility to put money aside.
	For many years, I have been concerned about the way in which the younger generation—by which I mean young people of working age, many of them bringing up young families—have taken account of the experience of their mums and dads, who have suffered under this Government as a result of the erosion of their pensions. The former Chancellor's hundred-billion-and-counting taxation raid on pension funds means that many people now do not have the funds that they expected to receive. All too often, their adult children think of what has happened to mum and dad and ask, "What is the point of putting money into a pension?". That should be a worry for us all, and for them in particular, but the Government do not appear to have recognised that the problem has been building up over many years. Now that we are experiencing this appalling recession, the problems of pensioners and those about to retire are particularly acute.
	The Government had an opportunity yesterday to remove the basic rate of taxation on people with investment income, but failed to take it. Although I welcome the Chancellor's announcement of an increase in the tax-free amounts in personal individual savings accounts, many people on fixed incomes, especially the pensioner population—a great many pensioners live in my rural Devon constituency—do not necessarily have the capital to put into an ISA. They have depended on interest on which they have drawn regularly to pay essential household bills, including bills for utilities such as fuel, and they feel extremely vulnerable now that interest rates are falling while they continue to be taxed on their income if the aggregate is above the tax threshold. Price reductions do not necessarily help them. In February this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that the poorest pensioners—those over the age of 80—faced an inflation rate of 6.7 per cent., more than four times the rate affecting the general population, because of the types of products and services on which the very elderly rely.
	We have had many debates in this House about the costs of the various baskets of items that represent the retail prices index, for example, or the real rate of inflation. Members do not need me to explain all the specific individual needs of the over-80s, but their purchasing pattern is very different from that of the rest of the population. Interest rates have fallen, and those with modest savings who rely on interest rates to supplement their income have been hit particularly hard. Therefore, I regret that the Government did not take the opportunity to adopt what was a Conservative policy. They have adopted Conservative policies in the past, such as on inheritance tax. Had they done so on this occasion, I promise that I would not have stood here today and said, "You've pinched one of our policies"; instead, I would have warmly welcomed the abolition of the 20 per cent. tax rate on investment income for basic rate taxpayers.

Angela Browning: The hon. Lady raises a good point, and that will help some pensioners, although not all. She also points to an issue that I hope the Government will take very seriously. Will they, through various agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux and Age Concern, redouble their efforts to ensure that anybody who is entitled to a state benefit, whether means-tested or not, is encouraged to apply for it and is assisted in obtaining it as soon as possible? I have held surgeries with my own CAB offices to encourage pensioners to apply for various benefits that they were entitled to but did not know they were entitled to, or—to pick up on the point the hon. Lady raised—were entitled to but resisted the opportunity because they feel means-tested benefits are demeaning. They find the form-filling rather difficult and some of the questions are very personal and can put many of them off.
	I have referred to the over-80s. They are members of the generation above mine. It is the generation that lived through the second world war. I am a baby boomer; I was born the year after the second world war ended. I am, because of my age, very familiar with the age group that is one above my own. They are a very proud and independent people and they will not come forward voluntarily to apply for benefits. Nevertheless, I think that we as Members of Parliament, and certainly the Government, should do all we can to make the process as dignified and simple as possible. In this recession, there is an enhanced opportunity for the Government to do all they can to make sure the statutory bodies, voluntary services and charitable agencies encourage more people who are entitled to apply for such benefits to do so. Nevertheless, there was something that the Government could have done yesterday, and I very much regret that they did not take that opportunity.
	I began by talking about personal debt. As I represent a rural constituency where communications might not be as good as in a city or large town, I am concerned that a lot of people living in small isolated communities do not always receive information and do not get to know about things as easily as those in urban areas. There is an issue to do with those people who loan money—the loan sharks if I may call them that. I am sure all Members have had to deal with constituency casework where people have clearly been taken advantage of—often some of the very poorest people who are truly on the margins in terms of their financial viability. I urge the Government, particularly at this time, when people are going to find the coming years extremely difficult, to ask the Office of Fair Trading to look again at better regulation of the consumer credit market.
	In some parts of the country, credit unions do an excellent job, but they, too, are not as easily available and known about in rural communities as they are in city centres. When they were first introduced, they were located in areas where it could be clearly identified that the population there might well benefit from them. Of course, in rural areas, people are scattered about and do not form a hub. None the less, there are outreach services and statutory agencies that can act on their behalf.
	I ask two things of the Government on behalf of people who are on very low incomes, including not only pensioners, but those of working age. Will the Government ensure that the consumer credit market is properly regulated? Will they examine how we can roll out credit unions in a more unified way, particularly in the rural parts of the United Kingdom, because I am sure that they will be needed? They will solve a lot of problems for people who might otherwise be seriously taken advantage of.
	The other loan sharks that I wish to mention are the banks. They have had a bad press and, like everybody else, I wish to see the credibility of the British banking system restored in a way that allows us to have trust in it, both as personal bankers and, on a much broader level, in terms of its importance as a national institution. I fear that we still have some way to go and the process of restoring confidence will go far beyond this recession.
	The Financial Services Authority has clearly failed. We have had debates in the House about how the rules have been changed, how the role of the Bank of England has been changed and how powers have been divested to the FSA. It is essential that the regulation of the financial institutions in this country is clear and transparent, and that it works. When we have debates about regulation and I speak from the Conservative Benches, very often people say, "You always want a light touch. You always want less regulation, not more." I believe that we have got it totally wrong in this place when it comes to regulation. I often find that regulation hits in the most top-heavy way areas where a light touch is needed, and we over-regulate in areas that need a light touch. However, in areas where proper regulation is needed and needs to be enforced, for some reason we get it wrong.
	We should all ensure that any proposals that come forward, as I hope they will, to make changes to regulation and the way in which the FSA works are not unduly top-heavy for the sake of it. Very often this is simply a matter of common sense; it is a question of saying, "Where does the regulation need to fall? Is it transparent? Will it be easy to monitor to ensure that it is working properly?". In asking the Office of Fair Trading to regulate the consumer credit market, I am not asking for a lot of top-down regulation just because things have all gone pear-shaped; I am asking for regulation that works and regulation that will genuinely restore the banking institutions of this country.

Angela Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as ever, has put his finger on an example that I wish I had thought of. It is a classic.
	When we first introduced the regulation of financial services in the mid-'80s, before I was elected, it seemed on the face of it that there was a very sensible way forward. Financial advisers, whoever they worked for—even if they were linked to a financial institution but were working independently—would carry out an analysis of somebody's financial needs. In giving best advice, as it was called at the time, they would need to ensure that the product that they were selling was right for that person and that they could afford to pay the premiums or put capital in. The advisers were regulated and checked to ensure that they did so. All of a sudden, out of the blue, every department store, every chain store and every bank could market products through the post, over the phone—and now over the internet—without the same criterion of best advice applying.
	The principle of best advice was right but, for some reason, it went wrong, and there were loopholes in it. I do not think that the answer is over-regulation. It is common sense to ensure that there is a level playing field wherever we regulate. If we do not have that level playing field, people will take advantage. When they take advantage by selling their products, however they sell them, the person who loses out is usually the poor investor who puts their money on the line.
	Let me move on to something else. I realise that today's debate is going to consider housing, in particular, and I want to touch on one aspect of that—that is, park homes. We have an all-party group on park home owners, of which I am a member, and I know that a few years ago the Government made some changes to the anachronistic rules that govern the purchase and sale of park homes. In a recession, park homes offer a wonderful opportunity for low-cost housing.
	There are several park homes in my constituency, and although they are not exclusively occupied by pensioners, many people who have not owned their own home or have owned a very small home move to a park home when they retire—that releases a lump sum, too—so a lot of elderly people live in them. Will the Government look again at the rules that apply to the sale and purchase of park homes, as they missed the opportunity to do so yesterday? There is no doubt that we still have what I would regard as restrictive practices in this area.
	I understand that site owners are business people who need to make a profit. Nobody is suggesting for one minute that they do not have a material interest in the sale and purchase of park homes. However, the way in which people are obliged to purchase a new home from a particular supplier and the way in which a cut of the sale price goes back to the park home owner is anachronistic in this day and age. I want the Government to think of the recession as an opportunity to look favourably on park homes and consider them as a way of providing more low-cost housing. Such housing would be more readily provided by park homes than by the construction industry, which seems to be moribund. If the Government plan to help the construction industry, I hope that they will equally consider the park home industry, provided that they take a fresh look at the way in which people who purchase homes from site owners are treated under the regulations.
	We have heard a lot about helping people on low incomes with energy costs. I have been in correspondence for nearly a year with various Ministers—I received yet another reply today, which was very negative—on the subject of those park home owners who are on sites where the landlord provides the fuel, which is usually liquefied petroleum gas and is often metered. The landlord sells the fuel to all the people on the site, and they are locked into a pricing regime over which they no control whatsoever. It seems that just about everybody else has the opportunity to shop around, to change supplier and to get the best deal that they can, yet these people are locked in. I have had a letter from a Minister yet again today to say that the Government have no intention of changing the regime. I do not believe that it would be that difficult to change it, and I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to look at that, as well as at the issue of the selling and purchase of park homes.

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend is right. The word "investment" has been stretched far too wide.
	This Government have not balanced the Budget since March 2002, which is seven long years ago. In the March 2003 Budget, they said that they would balance the Budget by March 2006. Two years ago, in the March 2007 Budget, the forecast slipped to March 2009. Three years ago, they forecast that we would be back in surplus this year. Last year, the forecast was pushed out further to 2011. In the pre-Budget report, it went out to 2015, and yesterday, as I understand the Red Book, it was forecast that it will be 2017-18 before we are finally back in surplus.
	The Government have consistently mismanaged public expenditure. They have overestimated revenues and failed to get proper control. There was a time when the job of the Treasury was to control spending. In the past seven or eight years, the Treasury has been directing spending and failing to control it. Now we are told that the remedy lies in even more efficiency savings, despite the fact that the National Audit Office has fully scored only around a quarter of the efficiency savings so far claimed.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) eloquently explained, if the economy goes on shrinking, government cannot go on growing. We have to start taking out costs and reducing layers of bureaucracy. We must do what businesses across the country have been doing and what households across the country are now having to do, which is, as my hon. Friend has said, cutting our cloth according to our means.
	The private sector has already outsourced back-office functions, cut layers of middle management and streamlined procurement. Those things have still not happened in central Government, local government, the health service bureaucracy and education bureaucracy. The perfect indictment of the Labour years is what sadly happened at North Staffordshire hospital. While patients were dying and others were drinking out of vases, three quangos—Monitor, which costs £13 million a year, the Healthcare Commission, which costs £76 million a year and the Audit Commission, which costs more than £200 million a year—were writing letters to each other. That was the failure of North Staffordshire hospital—a failure of the culture of ever-inflating quangos.
	If we are to maintain the credibility of our currency and reassure overseas investors, we must repair the damage done to our public and private finances over the past few years. We must put our public finances back in order, which involves reducing borrowing and the increase in spending. If we do not do that, we will end up with more cases such as North Staffordshire hospital and we will have to cut programmes for the most vulnerable. If we do not do it, in the end the IMF will have to do it for us.

Mark Lazarowicz: Like the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate, I was encouraged by the opening remarks by the shadow Chancellor, because I thought that we were at last going to get an inkling of the Conservative way forward in the current financial circumstances. The shadow Chancellor started quite well and indicated that he had five points. For the next 24 minutes of his speech, I was waiting to go through those five points to examine his solutions. First, he told us that we must analyse how we got here, which is fair enough—I probably disagree about how we got here, but such an analysis is a good place to start. He referred to some relatively minor movement of spending priorities that he said were fiscally neutral and would presumably make no overall difference, therefore, to the general strategy.
	I might have miscounted, but the shadow Chancellor seemed to get to only three of his five points. His final big point that I noted was that there should be a national debate about how we tackle an age of austerity. We all recognise that the economic situation is very serious: the Conservatives say that it is one of drastic seriousness yet, at a time when urgent action and policies are called for, the central point of the Conservative shadow Chancellor's policies is a call for a national debate about the age of austerity.
	That reflects the fact that Conservative Front-Bench Members are, to put it bluntly, too frightened to put forward any policies. They recognise that the public would not like what they would hear if the Opposition were to follow through the logic of positions such as that taken by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). I give the hon. Gentleman credit for the honesty of his arguments today, but anyone who heard them could not but conclude that his recipe for recovery from the current crisis involves massive cuts in public expenditure that would affect large numbers of public services. We all heard what he said about the need for much more outsourcing in elements of the public sector such as housing, health and education, and I am sure that we will all eagerly enter into debate about those matters in the months to come.
	Conservative Front-Bench Members may not have put forward many ideas today about how we can get out of the current situation, but other people have done so. I am glad to say that the Chancellor has been listening, and that he has implemented many of the more constructive proposals. Many people, organisations and MPs—and I was certainly one of the latter—have urged him to establish a programme for green jobs, arguing that such a programme would allow us to link the need to tackle the challenges of climate change with the need to provide jobs here and now for people facing unemployment.
	We suggested that a fund be set up to help local authorities and voluntary organisations provide jobs with an emphasis on tackling environmental concerns. Therefore, I strongly welcome the plans announced yesterday for funds to provide 100,000 new jobs in socially useful activity, to be delivered through councils and voluntary groups. I welcome in particular the commitment that at least 10,000 of those jobs will be in the green-job sector. When the Government do something for which one has been calling for some time, it is right to recognise the fact. I am certainly glad that the Government have responded in the way that they have, as that will allow us to tackle some green issues and at the same time provide jobs here and now for people who need them.
	I look forward to finding out more about the proposals shortly, and believe that the concept can be built on and developed. The voluntary sector in particular can play a major role in delivering these jobs as quickly as possible. Even more than local authorities, voluntary organisations can move quickly and come up with sensible and practical schemes that will deliver lasting benefits to local communities.

Mark Lazarowicz: If the hon. Gentleman looks in more detail, he will find, for example, that the pledge for 16- to 24-year olds is that every one of them facing long-term unemployment will have the opportunity to take up training. That is precisely the sort of positive measure that the Budget contains.
	The proposal to create 100,000 new jobs, many of them green jobs in socially useful activity, is one that I certainly welcome. However, I would ask the Government to consider the possibility of extending the scheme even further, to involve more than just younger workers. I understand that there are proposals in the Budget for 50,000 jobs in the programme to be concentrated in those areas of highest unemployment, which is obviously right and proper. However, we have an opportunity to spread the scheme throughout the entire UK once it is up and running, which is something that I would strongly endorse. I look forward to the Government coming up with the details of those proposals, so that they can be put into effect and make a difference to our communities as soon as possible.
	I would also emphasise that it is important not to assume that those environmental jobs are only those that involve clearing up rubbish or physical construction or work in that type of environmental project. Such work is of course important and valuable to the community, but there is a host of other green jobs that could be provided and which would make use of the wide range of talents and skills of those who find themselves without work in the current downturn. For example, there is interest in environmental education among those in every age group. Work is also to be done in promoting green travel plans for employers and employees. There is also a need not only to install energy efficiency and conservation technology, but to advise people on how to go about saving energy in their daily lives.
	Those are just some examples of a wide range of green jobs that could be made available through the development of the scheme that has been referred to in the Budget papers. Such jobs will clearly not fill the gap for everyone who is made unemployed in the current downturn, but they can certainly help to tide people over in the current difficult period. Again, let me emphasise that they are jobs that could come on stream in months, and in some cases perhaps weeks, which is what we need. We need to provide people with jobs soon, because they will increasingly feel the effects of the recession in their communities. Action of that type is therefore needed.
	It is certainly the case that many of the proposals for a low-carbon economy can have relatively quick impacts on employment. However, as I am sure the Minister would be the first to acknowledge, other proposals would take a lot longer to have an effect on jobs, because they require investment programmes that would take some time to result in large numbers of jobs. It is therefore important to consider ways of trying to produce employment opportunities in the short term, as well as in the medium and long terms.
	That said, the proposals for a low-carbon economy in the Budget as a whole are important, wide-ranging and very much to be welcomed. They have also had a positive response from many in the renewables and low-carbon sector. I would like to pick out a few quotations from those in the sector who have responded to the proposals. The general manager of Sharp Solar UK said:
	"This was a good day"
	for solar power. The British Wind Energy Association said:
	"With this boost we should see the UK speeding the progress towards exploiting our massive indigenous wave and tidal energy potential."
	The chairman of the BWEA said:
	"This package of measures deserves a welcome from our industry, and is in line with proposals that we have been working through with government. It addresses the short-term economic hurdles we faced due to the fall of the £ against the €...It also restates the Government's long-term commitment to the renewable energy sector, and should enable us to unlock up to £10bn of private sector investment in wind and marine energy projects over the coming few years."
	I could continue at length, but finally I will quote the Combined Heat and Power Association, which says that the Budget
	"marks a major step towards establishing a low carbon industrial base in the UK,"
	which could help to deliver up to £10 billion of investment in new CHP plant over the next few years. That is the reality of what people out there in the renewables industry and the low-carbon sector think of the Budget. It is also the kind of message that we should be hearing, not some of the negative messages that we have heard from some Opposition Members today.
	I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was absolutely right to place a major emphasis in his speech and in his proposals on the longer-term economic and industrial strategy, with a focus on the low-carbon economy, as well as on dealing with the immediate economic and financial pressures. He was right to do that for two reasons. First, there are short and medium-term economic and employment benefits to be had from investment in the low-carbon economy. In my constituency, that is particularly relevant because we have had a major reliance on the financial services sector for a number of years. Much of the financial services sector in Edinburgh, as elsewhere, is still doing well, but some of what is happening in the banking sector is bound to have an effect on the local economy, and that will obviously be the case in other areas where the financial services sector has been important.
	Fortunately, in my community and other areas where financial services have been important we also have a strong and growing energy and environmental sector. There are many companies big and small in the renewables sector that are well placed to gain from domestic and international opportunities in the low-carbon economy. There may even be expertise in the banking and financial services sector that could be used in the low-carbon economy. For example, there are interesting proposals for a green bank to use expertise in providing finance for long-term investments in low-carbon technology. That could represent part of a shift in emphasis in banking away from short-term speculation and playing financial markets to longer-term strategies and investment in the real economy, which certainly deserves every encouragement.
	The shocks that we have seen reverberate throughout the world economy triggered by the mortgage and banking crisis in the USA have certainly underlined how interlinked and fragile is the structure of the world economy. I am in no doubt that, in the long term, returning to business as usual in the financial and wider economy is not a viable strategy to prevent future turbulence and shocks. While in the short term we are right to seek a global stimulus to bring back economic growth, we certainly cannot expect business as usual to return.

Adam Price: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) must be one of life's eternal optimists. Perhaps that is no bad thing, given that he has a majority of 400. There are some points of light in the Budget, but I got the impression from listening to him that the problems that we face could almost be micro-managed away. That cannot be right. We are in the midst of one of the most severe economic downturns that we have ever faced. It might not turn out to be a great depression—that risk might have been averted at global level—but it will certainly be known as the great recession.
	My criticism of the Government is that the Budget does not contain the kind of bold, confident thinking that we have seen from the Obama Administration in the United States. It contains hints of the things that the Government think are important. There is a nod in the direction towards dealing with child poverty, for example, and a gesture towards greater progressiveness in the income tax system, but even these are not grasped firmly. I am left with the overwhelming feeling that the Government have run out not only of cash but of political capital and self-belief. I applaud some of the things that they have done, but the figures are so nugatory and limited that their effect will be negligible, given the scale of the overall challenge that we face.
	A more fundamental charge can be made against the Government, although it cannot be made lightly: in many ways, this is a dishonest Budget. I understand why the Government might believe that being honest, open and up front with the electorate at this time could risk driving us further into a depression. If you like, this is the beneficent lie—the white lie—that the Government feel that they have to tell to put a positive gloss on the economic situation that we face. I understand the argument that they are in the business of perception management, but I believe that things have been done for political reasons. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) suggested, the Government need to treat the electorate as adults. We can see a sleight of hand at the heart of the Budget statement, which is unforgivable, and I think that the electorate will see through it. That expresses itself in a number of different ways. Earlier, the Secretary of State suggested that this was a case of "We say cuts, they say efficiency savings; let's call the whole thing off". The electorate probably will, soon.
	In Wales, the Labour Finance Minister has confirmed that changes announced in the pre-Budget report and the Budget will mean that the £416 million that the Labour-led Welsh Assembly thought was available for public services will no longer be available. The Minister on the Front Bench might find that amusing, but many people, including Labour Assembly Members—and people who have hitherto been Labour voters—will not find it amusing when those measures result in cuts in public services. The Labour First Minister—the leader of the Labour party in Wales—has said that he cannot give any guarantee that there will not be public sector job cuts or cuts in the quality of public services as a result of the changes made in the Budget.
	The Barnett formula means that, regardless of any efficiency savings made in Wales or Scotland, we have no choice about this. The changes will affect the bottom line there. The Government's report on the operational efficiency programme praises the efficiency savings programme in Wales. On page 34, it refers to Value Wales and to the savings that have already been made. The First Minister in Wales told the Prime Minister that one would need to be the Archangel Gabriel to find any further efficiency savings in the Welsh Assembly Government. They simply are not there, as what the devolved Administrations by and large do is focus on health, education and public services; there are no armies of project managers and other non-jobs that may abound here in London.
	I find it curious for a Government suddenly to find all these efficiency savings when they have been in office for 12 years. Is it an admission of their inefficiency and the lack of productivity in the public sector? If these are genuinely efficiency savings and not cuts, why have they not been found up until now? Why did the Government, by their own admission, waste public money while the economic situation was far better than the one we face at the moment?
	The other element of dishonesty is, as we have heard, in the growth figures. We may have averted an L-shaped depression, but we are in the middle of a classic U-shaped recession, which is going to continue for some time. Nobody believes that this is a V shape and that we are suddenly going to bounce back from the worst fall in economic output in the post-war period. It has never happened—not once in the post-war period—that we have bounced back to a reasonable level of growth in the second year. That is clear if one looks at the Government's own table on page 200 of the Red Book. All the post-war recessions have involved either a second year of output reduction or minimal and negligible growth, which happened in the early 1990s. The British economy has never bounced back, as I say, in the second year. Nobody believes that.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Will he expand on it, because the depth of this recession is much worse than the previous one, making it even more unrealistic for us to bounce back?

Adam Price: Absolutely. This recession is much deeper than all the other examples that are cited. The other factor, of course, is the global economic outlook, which was different in the 1990s—the example most often cited by the Government as the comparator for this recession. If anything, this recession is closer to what happened in the 1980s. The three great drivers of economic growth in the UK— exports in the global economy, financial services and the housing boom—have all gone, so where is the basis for this projected incredible growth? Suddenly, it appears, after next year, we are going to re-enter the golden days and a halcyon era will be born again. That is the only way anything close to the Government's projections on tax revenue will be realised.

Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it. There is a structural demand gap and an output gap in the British economy, and the loss of the financial services sector means a once-and-for-all loss of about 2 per cent. of non-inflationary economic output, which will certainly have repercussions for many years to come. It is absolutely right that the public sector was a major driver, but that will not be there either.
	One feasible scenario is that we could face a double-dip recession, which is what happened in America in the 1980s. There was a recovery in 1980-81, but the effect of the fiscal stimulus America had embarked upon fell off, taking the country back into recession in 1982. A double-dip recession is as likely as any other scenario, because the growth in public-sector spending is falling.

Adam Price: If we add up the figures, we may find that I am wrong, but the pre-Budget report mentioned a stimulus of about £21 billion. According to my analysis, the maximum in terms of active stimulating measures in the Budget is not much more than an additional £5 billion. That does not compare with the £820 billion to which the Obama plan amounts in toto, and it is a fraction of what others have demanded. David Blanchflower called for a £90 billion stimulus in the Budget, and the NIESR called for a similar figure—£50 billion or £60 billion. Even the Sustainable Development Commission called for a £30 billion green new deal.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) quoted some positive comment about green jobs in the Budget, but most people in the sector have been desperately disappointed by the lack of delivery. According to Friends of the Earth:
	"The Government has squandered a historic opportunity to kick-start a green industrial revolution".
	Even Jonathon Porritt of the Sustainable Development Commission has said that the scale of Government investment
	"is not going to put us on track to achieving the extremely ambitious targets of the Climate Change Act",
	and the Campaign for Better Transport has observed:
	"The Budget is a missed opportunity on transport."
	We have not seen the green new deal. Once again, the Government's rhetoric is not backed up by reality. We are not seeing in this Budget anything like the stimulus that is needed to counteract the difficulties that we face. In this so-called Budget for jobs, I see nothing that is likely to deliver a significant number of new jobs in any part of the United Kingdom.
	There may be difficult times ahead. It is possible that we shall experience a further round of financial shocks at a global level. Some hedge funds may collapse. What is the Government's strategy for dealing with that? What if there is a fully fledged financial crisis in some of the eastern European economies? What will be the effects on the economy here? I certainly do not have any confidence that the Government have a comprehensive strategy to get us through the next few years.
	The final dishonesty is to do with tax. People say that new Labour is dead because the Government have finally embraced the idea of a progressive income tax system, but I think the Chancellor was hoisting a white flag yesterday, not a red flag, because this was a defeatist Budget. It is almost as if they have given up, because not only is the cupboard bare financially, as they believe, but it is bare of ideas as well.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have finally come round to the idea of tax justice, but to give the impression that raising the tax on the 1 per cent. of taxpayers who earn more than £150,000 will do anything to close the massive deficit that we face is deeply and utterly dishonest. The Government must be honest with people. It is my understanding—I would be happy for Ministers to correct me if I a wrong—that 60 per cent. of tax revenue comes from income tax, national insurance and VAT, which are paid by most people—or everyone, in the case of VAT. Therefore, everyone will have to contribute more to close the Budget deficit; otherwise that will be impossible.
	There is an obscure theorem in economics called Ricardian equivalence, which suggests that in a perfect world of perfect information and perfect markets, a Government do not have to say that they will raise taxes because, in the current situation, people will read the Red Book, see how much the deficit is, and realise that it is inevitable that they will raise taxes. However, most people might not have the time to plough through the 280-odd pages of the Red Book in the way that we Members do, and it is important that the public realise that we will be paying for the mistakes that have been made in economic policy and the management of the public finances for many years to come.
	This great recession will cast a long shadow. Unemployment continued to rise in Wales from the early '80s right up until 1986, and the Welsh economy did not begin to pick up again and emerge from that lost decade until the early '90s. I fear that we are facing a similar situation now. The Government have not been honest with the electorate—or possibly even with themselves—about the scale of the challenge we face both in terms of the economy, unemployment and growth and in terms of defending public services, because of the economic hole that I believe the Government have, in part, dug for this country.

Sally Keeble: Yes, indeed. Giving way allowed me to pick the Red Book up. If one looks at what Germany did, one finds that its discretionary measures were actually larger than ours. Given all the debate that took place and all the criticism that the Chancellor and Prime Minister faced from the Germans, one would never have expected that.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr is also wrong to say that people predicted the crisis. Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who is not in his place but with whom I serve on the Treasury Committee, have listened ever since 2005 to various people, almost all of them men in grey suits, talking about the economy. I did not hear any of them say that we were heading for the biggest ever cataclysm. The only people who were predicting the crisis were the people who have always predicted the collapse of capitalism, and they are to be found in the Socialist Workers party and the Liberal Democrats. Everybody else did not spot it.
	Even at the end of 2007, after the collapse of Northern Rock, people were saying that the situation was difficult but it would get better in the spring. It was not until the collapse of Lehman Brothers that it became absolutely clear that a domino effect was taking place and that we were into something that we had not seen before. The first person who publicly called it, much to my irritation, was the Chancellor on that infamous weekend that he spent in Scotland with that  Sunday Times journalist.

Sally Keeble: I agree, but what will help greatly is the increase in supply that the Government are providing through the Budget. That is really important and will be one of the measures that improves the housing market.
	Before I make my main point about the shape of services, I want particularly to welcome the proposals to allow grandparents' care for their grandchildren to be counted towards their pension. That is a really important scheme, which will give practical help to many women who have already taken time out of work to look after their children. It also sends out important signals about support for the family and about our understanding of what people want in terms of caring for their children. I pass on my thanks for that.
	One of the big issues we all have to face is that, even without the recession, there were real questions about the future direction of public services and their provision. Because circumstances have changed in the years of Labour Government, people have become used to a different standard of living and different standards of service. Those questions will become more acute now that spending is tighter. As a number of Members on both sides of the House have said, we have to make sure that public spending counts and is even more effective than it has been so far. We need to look at how we provide services and think about not just how we cut, but how we reconfigure. By any measure, cutting services year on year until 2015 would probably destroy the morale of everybody who came into public service, because, by and large, they do so to make sure that public services are provided.
	During the lifetime of the Labour Government, people have got used to having more choice of service and more control over the type of service they receive, which is all to the good, but it has profound implications for the range of our delivery agencies. There are many tiers of local government and there are different types of quango and semi-quango and arm's length delivery agencies. We need to take a hard look at them, so that we can have not necessarily a smaller state, but certainly a flatter one without so many quangoes and hierarchies of structure. For example, I know of one town where there are two chief executives sitting across the road from one another—I suspect my colleague on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), knows about them too. Each of those executives draws a large salary and each has a large bureaucracy serving exactly the same community. We need to give some thought about how such services are delivered in the future, while of course maintaining the democratic commitment.
	The one service that the public want to access most acutely is probably the health service, where public pressure for access to drugs such as Herceptin and treatments such as in vitro fertilisation has driven the provision of services, rather than the local purchasing authority. It is all to the credit of the Labour Government that people have got used to a standard of public service that is light years ahead of what they were used to—now, people complain if they have to wait two months for an operation, whereas previously they had to wait two years.
	Looking at the way in which a new configuration of services might work and the savings that it might produce, I refer my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to an interesting report—I have already mentioned it to her briefly—by PricewaterhouseCoopers on bridging the fiscal gap. It considers two models: one would make cuts, but PWC finds that completely unacceptable, because it would mean a level of cuts that we had never seen in the public sector; and the other would raise taxes, combining a 2 per cent. rise in VAT, a 1 per cent. rise in all national insurance contribution rates and a £5 billion increase in green taxes, which, again, would test public patience past breaking point.
	The report also considers the savings that could be made by reconfiguring public services in a way that maintained front-line services but changed some back-office functions. For example, over the time scales in the Budget, there are projected savings in back-office operations and IT of £8 billion, in collaborative procurements of about £24 billion, and in properties and facilities of about £5 billion. Those figures are indicative, but they certainly posit that, if we think carefully about the services that the public want, the way they want to access them and how they are provided, in a very different world where people want more say and do not want people to purchase for them—in other words where purchasing power is with the public, not with an institution—we can maintain the quality and quantity of public services to which people have become accustomed and still make sensible savings that chime much more with the public mood than heavy tax rises or public spending cuts ever would.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who shares my concern about that.
	I wish to refer to a specific instance in my constituency. There is an international company headquartered there, with a turnover of £170 million a year and 248 employees. It has a £16 million loan, which it is not seeking to extend. Its bank is one of the nationalised banks, and the rate is linked to 1 per cent. above base rate. If the Government's policy was working, interest rates for that company should fall. But what has this nationalised bank done? It has said, "Oh, no. You're not going to have 1 per cent. over base, you're going to have 4 per cent. over LIBOR."
	The company has already had to lay workers off because of the recession. The hike in interest rates means that it will pay an additional £640,000 a year, and to cover that it would have to lay off 20 people. The only way in which it could cover the increase imposed by the nationalised bank would be to lay off 20 people in the research and development department. Although that would cover the costs in the short term, it would greatly damage the future of a leading local company in a field in which it is imperative to remain at the forefront of development. The research and development department is at the cutting edge and does groundbreaking work. It is developing products for use in wind farms and products that reduce weight for transportation—two areas that the Government want to promote. Job cuts to the department would be a huge loss.
	On top of the significant extra cost that the company faces during the recession, the bank is charging unjustified fees. For example, it has demanded that the company's budget projections are audited at a cost of £25,000. In effect, it is imposing a £25,000 fee that will merely prove that the company's projections are right. We are not talking about a new company or a fly-by-night company; we are talking about an international company that has been in existence for a long time and is extremely well known.
	The Government have announced a number of schemes to help businesses through the downturn, but that company has not been able to access any funds. It appears that a successful, innovative and respected company based in the UK does not qualify for that money. Lots of money that is inaccessible to businesses is sloshing around quangos, and numerous Government schemes, most of which are not even operating, have been announced. For example, only one agreement has been signed as part of the working capital scheme, which Lord Mandelson announced in January and which was said to be "going live" on 16 January 2009.
	The position looks even more pitiful if we compare it with the practical help being provided abroad. In France, research and development operations are being encouraged through a scheme that covers 50 per cent. of the cost of staffing research and development projects. That practical help will ensure that those companies come out of the recession with a bright future. It is not surprising that the company in my area is having seriously to consider expanding its research and development project abroad, despite having a firm preference to locate it in the United Kingdom. Surely the Government should be encouraging successful businesses to remain in UK and not to go to France. Do not forget that the company in my constituency is a well established, international company that is based locally and at the cutting edge of its field. Instead of receiving help and support in the recession, it is being punished by a nationalised bank and this Government. The schemes that have been implemented are simply not working, and the help that is available overseas is threatening to encourage companies from this country to relocate abroad. The Government's policies are failing. They are failing the company in my constituency; they are failing thousands of companies across the country; and they are failing the British people.

Michael Weir: I came along today hoping to discuss the environmental and energy aspects of the Budget, which, to be fair, includes some quite good measures in that respect. Unfortunately, we were treated at the outset to a Punch and Judy show between Front Benchers on the question of cuts. Whether one calls it an efficiency saving or a cut, the effect is the same at the end of the day—there is less money for services. The Government are going to cut £1 billion from the Scottish budget over two years. The problem, other than that they are cutting money, is the danger of choking off a recovery, should it start to happen—nobody believes that it will start in the next few months.
	We must look at, for example, what President Obama is doing. The state of Maryland has a similar population to that of Scotland. It will receive £2.6 billion in extra funding supporting 66,000 jobs over the next two years rather than destroying jobs with budget cuts. The Government need to look again at what they are doing in that regard. The problem is not confined to Scotland, as the First Ministers for both Wales and Northern Ireland have made similar points.
	During the initial exchanges between the Front-Bench teams, the Secretary of State said that people on short-time working were being helped by tax credits. I accept that, but a loophole exists that I have taken up with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He was here earlier and I hoped that he would return to the Chamber to hear me make the point again, as I am still waiting for a response.
	Many people in my constituency put on short time have ended up working for fewer than the minimum hours required to qualify for tax credits. For those who do not have children, that minimum is 30 hours. People are facing a double whammy—losing wages and also their tax credits—and that is causing a great many problems. I have asked the Treasury whether there is any scope for treating people whose hours have been cut as though they were still working the minimum number, as that would both avoid the double whammy that I have described and help them out of what is a difficult situation.
	I appeal to the Exchequer Secretary, who is on the Front Bench at present, to give consideration to that proposal. The problem is serious, and it is getting worse as short-term working increases. Many firms are trying to hold on to people and skills rather than making them unemployed, and the proposal that I have made would be a way to help them out in that regard.
	I turn now to the environmental element of the Budget. It makes a good start in some areas, although it remains well below what is known as the Stern test, which is that 20 per cent. of fiscal stimulus should go towards green initiatives. It compares unfavourably with South Korea, for example, which has achieved a rate of 82 per cent.
	The Budget has made progress in respect of carbon capture and storage—a subject in which I have had an interest for many years. It is possible that I have bored successive energy Ministers about it—

Charles Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me in. I would have given him a couple more minutes before getting even more fractious in my seat.
	I listened to the Budget yesterday in stunned silence. The figures were enormous. When I left here I went on a sort of comfort-eating crusade. Thank gosh I do not smoke or drink or I would have been a mess by midnight. No slice of carrot cake in the precincts of the House of Commons was safe, and when I had worked my way through the various tea rooms, I got home and raided the fridge. I was just trying to come to terms with the enormous figures that had been put before me, and I thought that if I ate, somehow things would become clearer. I put my svelte figure under huge stress last night, but this morning I was back to the muesli.
	I understand that over the next five years we shall have increased the national debt by £703 billion. It will probably be more than that, but right now the Government are telling us £703 billion. Our total debt will be well over £1 trillion. There are 12 zeros in a trillion. I have only 10 fingers and thumbs. There are more zeros in a trillion than I have digits. This is an enormous sum of money. The real concern that I have is that I will not be able to pay it back. Personally, Charles Walker will not be able to pay this money back. My peers will not be able to pay it back. Members of Parliament will not be able to pay it back. People of working age will not be able to pay it back. Our children will not be able to pay it all back. Our small children will have this debt around their necks. Even our grandchildren will struggle with the size of this debt. It is truly an enormous sum of money.
	Indeed, we may well find ourselves—we do find ourselves—borrowing to fund our borrowings. We will be borrowing money to pay money back on the gilts that become due in any certain year. Every year, a little more than 30 per cent. of income tax receipts will go to fund our borrowings—£43 billion a year. When our constituents pay their income tax, £1 in every £3 will go towards funding the debt mountain. This is a huge sum of money; a frightening sum of money.
	I do not want to be churlish because I know that there are many good people in the Government who work hard on behalf of this country. They do not always get it right and they have not got it right this time, but I do not question their integrity for a moment. We were told by the then Chancellor, who is now the Prime Minister, that the Government would borrow only to invest, that he would spend only to invest, but in reality Governments only borrow and spend, however you dress it up. They can borrow prudently and spend prudently, or they can borrow foolishly and spend foolishly. Now, the Government are not borrowing prudently. They are borrowing huge sums of money to bail themselves out of the enormous financial mess that they have got the country into.
	I personally blame the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He had this enormous mandate when he came to power in 1997 to reform this country and make real changes to our public services. He allowed the brooding presence in No. 11 to limit his ambitions and aspirations for this country. If only, perhaps in 2000, the Prime Minister of the day had walked over to No. 11 and said, "Do you know what? You are beginning to really annoy me. You are a very, very negative influence on this country. You are bad for my karma, and I am going to make you Foreign Secretary. Then I am going to make you Home Secretary to finish you off very quickly." But he never had the courage to front up Gordon Brown, the now Prime Minister, and now we find not just ourselves but generations to come burdened with his foolishness.
	One in every £4 that the Government will spend this year and next year and the year after will be borrowed. No family or home could operate on that basis for any length of time, and I really fear desperately for the future of this country if we have yet another year of this Labour Government. They have no credibility or authority left. That is not necessarily their fault, and it is not necessarily a bad thing. All Governments come to the end of their natural life. We have a democracy in this country, and the democratic wheel turns. After 12 years, the public have had enough of new Labour. There is nothing that the Government can do between now and June next year that would enable them to win a general election, so I say to them: "Have the courage to go to the nation now. Go to the nation in June. Let's get this over and done with. You will be beaten in June, but the defeat will be far less severe than if you wait until next year. So, do yourselves and your colleagues a favour: go to the nation now." I did not want this to be a partisan speech, but perhaps it has been slightly so. I do not want to attack anyone in the Government personally, beyond the Prime Minister.
	I shall conclude by expressing my concerns about the Chancellor's forecasts. Everyone thinks that they are wildly optimistic, that they are not grounded in reality, and that the Chancellor painted slightly too rosy a picture of the public finances. I am concerned that he perhaps failed to level with the country yesterday, and that he was perhaps not—I shall not say "honest", because I do not want to force you to stand up and ask me to apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor is a very decent man, and he really did not want to tell the country quite how bad things were going to be. Thank God that we have the International Monetary Fund, however. A couple of hours after the Budget, it told us how bad things were going to be. It gave us the real picture and told us that there were hard times ahead. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) who, in her thoughtful speech, said that the British people were very resourceful and brave, and that they were able to face down a challenge. They are up to the challenge, and it is time that all politicians were honest with them and with their constituents.
	The money is running out. I wish that it were not. I would like to spend money as though there were no tomorrow, but those days are behind us. We are in for a very difficult number of years, but I would far rather that the years ahead were difficult for me and my generation than for my children and grandchildren. We must all take collective responsibility for the current financial crisis. I enjoyed house prices booming, and I enjoyed cheap credit to the maximum. We have had the good times, we have had the very best times, and we must now face up to our responsibility to ensure that we leave our children and grandchildren a safe economic legacy. We must leave them an economy that will allow them to prosper and to have the best chance to enjoy the things that we have enjoyed. That means us making sacrifices now—not next year, not three years down the road, but now.

David Gauke: I, for one, believe that the right hon. Gentleman's ambition should be higher. I think the Labour party could do a lot worse—I genuinely mean this—than make the right hon. Gentleman its leader. In fact, it is doing a lot worse, so perhaps he should consider this course sooner rather than later.
	This Budget is, as right hon. and hon. Members have argued in today's debate, essentially about the issue of borrowing and debt and the state of the public finances. We have seen a spectacular deterioration in our public finances. Just a year ago, in the 2008 Budget, it was anticipated that we would need to borrow £38 billion this year—a not insignificant sum in itself. Now, however, we are looking at a figure of about £175 billion—the highest level of borrowing in our peacetime history. As the IMF has made clear, we have the highest deficit in the G20.
	The figure for debts—an area where we were relatively better placed than many of our competitors—is also pretty frightening. In the early years of this Government or up until relatively recently, it is true that debt fell as a percentage of gross domestic product from 42 per cent. to 36 per cent. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough pointed out, it has fallen less than in than the majority of OECD countries during those years, but it is now rising more quickly.
	Let us not forget the sustainable investment rule, which says that debt should be no more than 40 per cent. of GDP. We have learned from the IFS today that such is the state of our public finances that the rule is unlikely to be met until 2032. In fact, we are going to see a doubling of the figure in the sustainable investment rule level up to just below 80 per cent.—overtaking in the process the debt levels of France and Germany. Those figures are based on what the Government provided yesterday, yet the real concern persists that what we heard yesterday was an underestimate. Within an hour of the revealing of the Budget figures, the International Monetary Fund predicted that growth would be worse in 2009 than the Government's projection, and that we would still be in recession in 2010.
	Conservatives and, I am sure, Members in all parts of the House hope that the Government's figures will be proved right and the IMF's will be proved wrong, but the Government's claim that growth in 2011 growth will be at 3.5 per cent. is clearly unsustainable. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, that is a trampoline recovery. Independent forecasters whose views were published by the Treasury only a month or so ago predict growth at such levels as 2.2 per cent. and 2.6 per cent. in 2011, 2012 and 2013, not 3.5 per cent. It appears that after many years of the Prime Minister's promising that there would be no return to boom and bust, it is the Government's aspiration and hope to return to boom and bust, with another boom in 2011.
	Let us look at the small print of what was published yesterday. Paragraph 108 on page 26 of the National Audit Office's "Audit of Assumptions" states:
	"The Treasury has reduced its trend assumption further for Budget 2009, incorporating a permanent reduction in output totalling around 5 per cent, phased in between"
	the third quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2010. What that means is that the productive potential of the United Kingdom has taken a permanent hit of 5 per cent., yet the Government still think that growth of 3.5 per cent. will be possible in 2011. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr pointed out, there is no historic precedent for that sort of recovery from a recession.
	The significance of that is twofold. It makes the claim for growth in 2011 less credible, and it reveals that much of the £175 billion deficit—£140 billion, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—is structural. Given the current projections, we are not likely to be able to grow our way out of a recession unless serious measures are taken.
	The test of the Budget is whether it represents a credible route out. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, the Government's record on projecting the public finances is so grim that they consistently overestimate the position, yet even according to these projections we shall have to wait for many years. For the last eight years or so, the Government have tended to say that the Budget will balance in about two years' time. In last year's pre-Budget report the period was extended to six years, and, in this year's Budget, it was extended to eight. Those are hopelessly optimistic assumptions.
	Yesterday the Government had an opportunity to explain how to restore the public finances, and they failed to do so. What did we get? We got their proposal to alter their own spending plans in 2011. In 2010, they will still be increasing spending, although they believe that the economy will be growing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the shadow Chancellor pointed out, if we use the methodology that the Government have used against us for many years, any reduction of announced spending constitutes a cut. We see this as a cut of £84 billion.
	That is not just a pedantic point. At the last election, the Government managed to reach a figure of £35 billion on the basis of an alteration in our announced spending plans. We heard the statements made by Labour Members at the time. The current Chancellor said that it was the equivalent of sacking every teacher, doctor and nurse in the country. Over the past 10 years, the central argument has been that the Government could always afford these big increases in public spending: increases of 4, 5 or 6 per cent. We have argued against that, and in doing so have been portrayed as slashers and burners of public services. We could not afford those increases then, and we cannot afford them now. The question now is how we can deliver quality public services in an age of austerity. The Government, however, continue to search for the old dividing lines, trying to pretend that we are the party that cuts public spending while they are entirely different.
	What is the Government's approach to bringing down the deficit? Let us look at tax. They have tried to highlight one issue above all others: the 50p rate. That has the singular achievement of being cynical in at least four respects. First, it is a breach of a manifesto pledge. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was very keen for the shadow Chancellor to intervene on him, and I am perfectly prepared to let the Secretary of State intervene on me to say whether he denies or accepts that the Labour party's last manifesto stated that it would not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next Parliament and therefore that the policy announced yesterday is the clearest and most blatant breach imaginable of a manifesto pledge.
	Secondly, it is cynical because it is a distraction from other taxes. In truth, even before the next general election, most of the taxes imposed will apply across the board, such as the fuel duty increases, and the increases in the cost of alcohol and tobacco. However, the really big tax increase will happen after the next general election. As soon as the election is over, Labour will increase national insurance contributions, affecting everyone earning more than £20,000 a year.

David Gauke: The Labour party has announced—under, I suspect, the same methodology that it used at the last election—£84 billion-worth of cuts. The Conservative party position is that our priority will be to try to tackle the tax increases introduced by the Labour party that will affect the many and not the few. Therefore, there is no commitment here to reverse that particular tax rate—but whether we can reverse it or not, the fact remains that it is a cynical policy.
	That point brings me to another reason why this tax rate is so cynical. One can see what happened here. As the Government sat down in No. 11 Downing street—or, more likely, No. 10 Downing street—the thinking was not, "How are we going to bring in some tax increases that are good for the UK economy and will not damage its productivity?" Instead, the thinking was more, "What can we do to put the Conservative party in a difficult position?" That is the way that this Government work.
	The fourth reason why the policy is cynical is that it will not raise the amount of revenue that has been claimed. We do not dispute that it will raise some revenue, but as the IFS has stated today, no account has been taken of the fall in indirect consumer spending that will result from this tax increase, so the Government will not raise as much money as they claim.
	Let me return to the issue of how this Government operate: they are not thinking about what is best for the country; they are not thinking about addressing the fiscal crisis that we face; the way they operate is all about political positioning and trying to damage their opponents. This is all of a piece; it is consistent with the way that this Prime Minister has operated throughout his career. Even when dealing with his own party colleagues, he blocked public services reform because it suited his own internal party position. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he abolished the 10p tax rate to try to wrong-foot the Leader of the Opposition. No wonder there is an atmosphere within Downing street that leads people to believe that there are no limits on what can be done to put pressure on their opponents, as we saw over Easter and in the McBride affair.
	This is a Budget that fails to address the long-term needs of the country and ducks the big issues—it is a cowardly and dishonest Budget. Tony Blair's speechwriter yesterday described it as a Budget of a Government preparing themselves for opposition. The Government have neither the ability nor the desire to govern responsibly, and it is time that they made way for those who can.

Angela Eagle: Indeed, a depression. After that, his contribution went downhill. We probably do not agree on much more. He is at least in favour of a fiscal stimulus, and we had some discussion about the size of that. Of course, that puts us on the same side of the argument, against those who said that we could not afford a fiscal stimulus. The Opposition voted against the fiscal stimulus that was a centrepiece of the pre-Budget report. They would have put us in a position where we would have been unable to bring forward the £3 billion of investment that was already planned, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced. We would not have been able to stimulate the economy in order to support people now.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made his usual trenchant remarks. I hope to see him in the Committee on the Finance Bill, so that we can carry on our jousts there. Naturally, I do not agree that the Labour Government have destroyed the economy. He needs to take into account what is going on outside the country. We have had a massive unexpected global banking shock, which has created the first synchronised global downturn and decrease in world gross domestic product since the first world war— [ Interruption. ] It does not say that anywhere; I am just describing what is happening in the world economy.
	I know that it suits the Opposition to pretend that all these problems and the sudden huge shock in our financial services have somehow been generated internally in this country, leading to the deficits that the Opposition go around the country trying to scare people about, but the circumstances of the credit crunch and of events in the global international financial system are unprecedented. Inevitably, those circumstances have had a big effect on all economies in the world, both advanced and developing, and we face major economic challenges as a result. I would have thought that, just once, an Opposition Member might acknowledge that that is going on, instead of peddling the view that all the problems were internally generated in No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street—that we could all have foreseen them somehow and that we have deliberately got ourselves into a situation where we have to deal with a borrowing requirement of 12 per cent. of GDP. If the Opposition were being more honest, rather than talking in their slogans for the forthcoming general election, they would acknowledge that we have been affected by an unprecedented global situation and that we have to recover from that.
	It is important that we acted to shore up the banking system. That was essential, but it was done at a cost. Initially, the Opposition opposed our action, then they were in favour of it, then they opposed it again. Their thoughts on what we should be doing to save the global banking system seem to change from one day to the next. They spent years acknowledging that financial services were a major part of our economy and that we are an open and trading economy, but they now blame the Government for the fact that the global downturn is having an greater effect on our economy than on some more closed economies. That is true, because ours is an open economy that had a comparative advantage in financial services. That is why we have been hit more severely than some economies. Japan and Germany, neither of which have large financial sectors in the same way as we do, have been hit even harder because they manufacture and export. They are being hit by the same sort of global slow-down—the stalling of the economic engine—that was the result of the credit crunch.
	We have to get the world economy through the present problems, and we have to get this country through the challenges that we face, so we acted to shore up the banking system, despite the Conservatives' less-than-helpful approaches. That was essential, but it had a cost. We acted in the pre-Budget report to provide real help for people and businesses, and that included the fiscal stimulus that the Conservatives voted against. A tax cut for the 22 million basic rate taxpayers will go into their pay packets this April. The Conservatives have to explain to the people of this country why they voted against it. They have to explain why, when things are so challenging and difficult, their priority for expenditure is to spend £1 billion on giving £200,000 each to the 3,500 richest estates in the country. Our priority is giving a tax cut to 22 million basic rate taxpayers. They have to explain why they refused to change their mind about that when they had the chance to do so—the shadow shadow Chancellor, in his usual way, suggested that perhaps they should change their mind about the policy. They have to explain why it continues to be their priority.
	The Conservatives also have to explain what they will do about the increase to a tax rate of 50 per cent., which we have had to introduce to deal with the unprecedented situation that we are in. They have to explain why the Mayor of London today announced that he was against it and that the Conservative party should vote against it, when the Conservative Front Benchers are being rather coy about their view. The Conservatives have had much fun talking about potential leadership challenges in our party—they even tried to provoke my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who is doing a fantastic job where he is, to join the next leadership contest—but the Mayor of London is stalking the leader of the Conservative party before the latter has got anywhere near the gates of No. 10. He announced that he might not even bother to stand for a second term as Mayor, and that he might be looking for a seat in this place, so that he can see whether he can cause a leadership election in the Conservative party.

Don Foster: Given the current financial crisis, using even a small amount of parliamentary time to debate the problems caused by urban seagulls might seem bizarre. However, while we rightly devote much of our time to the financial crisis, we should not lose sight of other issues, especially ones that cause significant problems to many people and cost individuals, businesses and local councils a great deal of money.
	I am particularly grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue. I pass on huge thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who is not in the Chamber because, as he has explained to me, he is on important departmental business. I am, however, delighted to see on the Treasury Bench the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who I am sure will be a worthy substitute.
	I have received numerous complaints in my Bath constituency about urban seagulls. Mr. Henry Brown, chairman of Bath Residents Associations, wrote to me recently about the serious health and safety problems caused by seagulls in Bath. He referred to faeces deposited on tables, chairs and other furniture outside catering premises creating a health hazard; stone pavements and steps rendered slippery by freshly deposited faeces creating safety hazards; aggression towards pedestrians in public spaces and gardens, which is extremely frightening; and the pecking open of refuse sacks, which leaves debris and encourages other vermin, creating further health problems.
	A search through local newspapers across the country shows that Bath is not alone. For example, in August last year, the  Daily Mirror reported:
	"A terrified woman in Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire was left drenched in blood after a seagull protecting its young dive-bombed her. Jean Wemyss, 68, had to have a one-inch gash in her head glued after the attack. 'It felt like someone had hit me with a rock. There wasn't a stitch that wasn't covered in blood.'"
	Such results from a bird attack might seem exaggerated, but with a wingspan of four and a half feet, an adult body weight of about 2 lb, a long, vicious beak, a flight speed of 40 mph and sharp claws that are swift to draw blood in an attack, each bird represents an impressive threat as it hurtles through the sky.
	The newspapers have hundreds of similar stories—from attacks on people carrying food to birds swooping on bike riders, causing accidents. The headlines illustrate the problem: "Raging Gull", "Pensioner's Horror At Gull Attack", "Hitchcock's Vision Rapidly Becoming Terrifying Reality" and "Vicar Has To Wear Hard Hat To Church After Seagull Attack".
	As well as the birds attacking people, urban communities increasingly have to deal with their ear-splitting noise, the mess gulls' excrement makes on rooftops, pavements, cars, and windows and the damage they do to buildings—even pulling away lead flashings. It is no wonder that in January the  Daily Mail ran a story with the rather lengthy headline, "They're noisy, filthy, violent...and they're moving into a street near you. No, not marauding teenagers, but the seagulls invading Britain's inland towns by their thousands."
	Before world war two there were no urban seagulls, but the growth of urban landfill sites offered a whole new source of food, especially after the Clean Air Act 1956 put a stop to landfill operators burning rubbish on site. With so much edible waste going into landfill, the large gulls were quick to take advantage. Plenty of food meant plenty of offspring, and previously small, wild populations grew rapidly to the tipping point where their colonies were overgrown. The overspill came to our towns, which have fewer predators and little disturbance. Towns are 4 to 6° C warmer than the surrounding countryside, and street lighting enables gulls to scavenge at night as well as during the day. Gull expert Peter Rock wrote to me, saying:
	"Three years ago, I estimated that we had 130,000-180,000 pairs of gulls nesting on rooftops in the whole of Britain and Ireland. It's quite clear that the growth of these urban colonies has been startlingly high. I estimate that by 2019"—
	10 years' time—
	"we could have over a million gulls nesting on our rooftops. And by then urban gulls will outnumber wild gulls. Once settled in, gulls virtually never return to the wild. They are urbanised for life—a very long time, considering that the average seagull lives to 20 years, and the record is 35."
	In my constituency, our seagull colony has doubled in size in just six years, and we now have more than 850 breeding pairs. When non-breeders are added, it means that we already cope with 2,500 seagulls, and the numbers continue to increase rapidly. Other places are in an even worse position. With gull populations expanding rapidly, the problems, previously perceived as little more than an irritation and often with a great deal of mirth, have, instead, become very costly indeed. Repairs to damage, clearing up fouling and mess, nest clearance and so on are obvious areas of expense, but gull noise elicits the vast majority of complaints, affects tourism and the resource from it, causes sleep deprivation in the work force and distresses hospital patients. Attacks from aggressively protective parent birds deter shoppers, with obvious effects on local economies.
	A plethora of pest control equipment and deterrence systems has been deployed during the past decade, involving very large sums of money. Looking across the roofs of any town where gulls breed, we see nets, strings, spikes, tensioned wires and even plastic models of owls and helium-filled balloons, and we hear loudspeakers broadcasting distress calls. Birds of prey are sometimes flown, as they are over this Palace, to try to deter nesting, but, despite those interventions, populations have grown rapidly. The gulls have taken everything thrown at them in their stride, and even more recently developed methods do not seem to be working.
	Some councils are deploying the method that Peter Rock suggested some years ago, whereby eggs are coated in oil to prevent hatching. Bristol city council, for example, is spending £30,000 a year on certain measures. But, while egg oiling and, latterly, egg replacement can help calm sensitive areas, it does not seem to reduce populations. Rock now says:
	"It's just not effective enough; it may simply move the problem around."
	Indeed, it is increasingly clear that the solutions that have been tried so far merely move the problem somewhere else. My local council spends thousands of pounds each year on such measures in Bath city centre, but it admits that
	"it is noticeable that in the last few years there are more complaints coming from areas outside the city centre where there were previously no problems".
	In short, we seem no nearer to an effective solution than we were a decade ago.
	The Government have a responsibility to ensure that appropriate research is conducted to help identify solutions. After all, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is spending £2 million on the urgent eradication of the ruddy duck. Should it not also research some effective means at least to ameliorate the seagull problem? We certainly know a great deal about the biology of gulls, but most of our knowledge comes from studies of wild colonies. We know which species of fish that they prefer, but that casts no light on the situation in our towns. We know almost nothing about what makes urban gulls so successful, so, if we are to manage this issue properly, we surely need to find out.
	We also need to know about issues such as site fidelity, breeding success, foraging strategies, foraging distances, time-energy budgets, chick growth rates, dispensing with migration, survival rates and much more. Most of all, we need to know about how and where urban gulls get their food, what it is and what, in particular, they provide for their offspring. Knowing how and where urban gulls obtain food will enable appropriate and efficient control of food supplies.
	Experts are ready and willing to do the work. I know that Bristol university, for example, can be ready to take on preliminary work this season and start fully in 2010. But despite the urgent need for research, at the beginning of this month the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) saying:
	"My department has no plans to fund research into the urban gull population."
	I hope that, following this debate, the Department will rethink the issue.
	Action is also needed on a number of other fronts. Even if research identifies new solutions, it is unclear how the law will allow them to be used. At present, action against seagulls is allowed via a general licence. This includes a licence that allows the taking and killing and the damaging or destroying of eggs and nests of certain seagull species for the purpose of preserving public health and safety; a general licence can also be issued in respect of ensuring aircraft safety.
	At present, such a licence does not allow such activity in respect of nuisance, such as that caused by the noise of seagulls, or damage to property. Given that the vast majority of complaints about seagulls involve nuisance and damage to property, surely there is a case for reconsidering the conditions that surround the issuing of general licences so that those factors are also taken into account? Natural England is currently reviewing the general licence provisions and I hope that the Department will encourage it to take the point on board. The review is already also considering whether to have tighter restrictions on the issuing of general licences in respect of one type of gull—the herring gull.
	However, were a distinction to be made between herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls in terms of what is allowed to be done to limit the numbers, all measures such as egg replacement would simply have to cease, because even experts cannot distinguish between the eggs of the two species. I was therefore pleased to read in a note that I received only today from Natural England that the organisation now appears to recognise that in urban areas
	"the control of the Herring Gull population may be desirable".
	No final decisions have been made, but it seems that the proposal will be to continue the current general licence terms for urban areas. I hope that the Department will oppose any tightening of the restrictions.
	In summary, urban seagull problems have to be resolved. We need research to help us identify effective control measures and greater clarity about the rules allowing such measures to be undertaken. We certainly do not need any moves that will make tackling the problem more difficult. The neighbourhood environment manager of my local council summed it up in an e-mail that she sent me today:
	"In terms of help, I feel that local authorities have limited scope to act and are working on their own initiative, when really the problem is regional, even national. There needs to be national commissioned research on the problems created by urban gulls which can lead to actions that local authorities can take together in a co-ordinated way. There is a frustration that nationally the problem is not taken seriously enough. However, at a local level it is an issue that the public feel very strongly about."
	Too many people have lived for too long with the menace of the urban seagull. I hope that we can hear tonight what help the Government have to offer.